RadheRade1657

There can be so much historical evidence and stuff to prove things but when it comes to Krishna Consciousness, faith is the basis.

Haribol Indulekha Ji!

That's exactly what I'm saying. Faith is the basis of all religious belief (Krishna Consciousness, Buddhism, Christianity, etc...), but Raghu says that it's wrong to make definitive statements about Jesus (since there's no physical evidence that he existed). But, I mean, if we want to go by physical evidence alone, then it's also not appropriate to make definitive statements about Lord Krishna. We love and believe in Krishna based on faith. So why is it wrong to love and believe in Jesus based on faith as well?

Radhe Radhe!

I think if someone even just accepted Mahaprabhu as a great saint and followed his teachings to chant harinama he would still end up perfect. Divinity is revealed to those who chant Krishna's name. We shouldn't hold that as a prerequisite for people to become devotees.

Now, I personally think that Sri Krishna Chaitanya is the Supreme Personality, but I agree with you, Jahnava Nitai Das Ji. I don't think they should have to think of Him as Sri Krishna to be devotees.

Jai Gaura-Nitai! Jai Radhe-Kanta!

Your poem is very beautiful! I wish I could write like that! Jai Nitai-Gauranga!

Jai Sri Kunti Mata! BTW, and there's much speculation on both sides of this argument (it doesn't really make a difference to me either way... just curious), does anyone know whether Kunti Devi conceived each of her children chastely or through having relations with each of the devas. Does anyone have a definitive answer on it? Thanks!

Jai Sri Radhe-Kanta! Jai Sri Kunti Mata!

So you are suggesting that the people who corrupted the words of Jesus have substituted those of Krsna from the Bhagavad-gita into hundreds of spots in the New Testament? Or perhaps they substituted their own evil fantasies for the words of Krsna too?

Exactly! If someone can't accept the words of Jesus in the Gospels as the actual words of the historical Jesus, how can they possibly accept the words of Krishna in the Gita as the actual words of the historical Krishna (and vice versa)?

Hey Raghu, since you love quoting Atheist scholarship so much, I found these articles about an Atheist scholar just for you!:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/July/subcontinent_July618.xml&section=subcontinent&col=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Sharan_Sharma#Political_controversies ((Wikipedia! Your favorite less-than-reliable source!))

Oh no... according to your logic, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna don't exist anymore, because some Atheist scholar who has a college degree says that They never existed! Looks like you shouldn't worship Them anymore since we can't prove that They absolutely existed with physical evidence and have to rely on faith (which you criticize us for doing with Jesus... I sincerely hope you're not a hypocrite)!

An attempt to bring this discussion back on track (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible):

 

Bible refers to the collections of canonicalreligious writings of Judaism and of Christianity.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP> The books that are considered canon in the Bible vary depending upon the historic tradition using or defining it. These variations are a reflection of the range of traditions and councils that have convened on the subject.

The Jewish version of the Bible, the Tanakh, is divided into three parts: the Teaching, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Christian version of the Bible includes books of the Tanakh, but includes additional books and reorganizes them into two parts: the books of the Old Testament primarily sourced from the Tanakh (with some variations), and the 27 books of the New Testament containing books originally written primarily in Greek.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP> Some versions of the Christian Bible have a separate Apocrypha section for the books not considered canonical by the tradition or sometimes the publisher.

 

And from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus):

 

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a GalileanJew, was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman GovernorPontius Pilate because of an accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP> Few critical scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[6]</SUP> or completely inaccurate.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[7]</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP>These are just a few of the many examples one could cite to cast doubt on the attempts of some gaudiya vaishnavas to definitively say anything about the Bible, Christianity, or Jesus. By the way, these are not from Jihadi websites - they are fairly neutral in origin and the points they make are also known to Christian believers who graduate from seminary. </SUP>

LOL... Plenty of scholars also say that Krishna never existed, or, if he did, was a tribal hero who was later deified. I'm sure that if you went to one of these Atheist scholars and told them half of the stories of Sri Krishna's life, they'd laugh in your face (esp. his youthful pastimes, such as the Rasa Lila, the raising of Govardhan Hill, and the humbling of Kaliya). I can't believe you're using what Atheist scholars have said to support your view when they also don't believe in Krishna or any other form of God and make it their life-mission to disprove the existence of such beings! All religious belief is based on faith. You can't disprove the life of Krishna or the life of Jesus by saying that there's not enough historical evidence to support them. That doesn't make either life any less true. Likewise, you can't "definitively say" that Krishna existed either. Krishna and Jesus belong to the realm of faith. You can't prove them physically because you can't prove God physically. And, just because you can't prove their pastimes physically (Jesus- Virgin birth, Sermon on the Mount, Crucifixion, etc... Krishna- Rasa Lila, Govardhan Hill, subduing of Kaliya, Putana, and Trinavarta, etc...) doesn't mean they didn't happen. (Oh, and, BTW, the source you cite is less than scholarly. Anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia. I've edited articles on it before. Anyone can. It doesn't matter if you're a 3rd grade school boy or a college professor. Anyone can edit it. For all you know a "Jihadi" wrote it!)<OH, do. to hard not It?s before. articles edited I?ve please. they article any edit and Wikipedia on go can Anyone scholarly. than less is quote you source the BTW, and,>

But, even if Jesus' life wasn't exactly as it is set out in the Gospels, how does that affect his message? His message remains the same. You still haven't answered why it should not be considered a valuable source of knowledge. What does Jesus say that's so corrupt and horrible that we have to throw him and his message down the garbage disposal? Will you please stop pussyfooting around and quoting Atheists and answer that question?

And here we come again, full circle.....

 

How do you even know what Christ's message is???

Probably because he's actually read Christ's message, unlike you (who passes judgment on something you haven't even read).

Then you also are having trouble with elementary reading comprehension. Learn to use context cues to determine the meaning of a word with multiple dictionary meanings. From context it is *obvious* what I was talking about when I said "corrupted."

 

A lot of the useless arguing here can be avoided if persons such as yourself, Theist, Murali, ghAri, etc could suppress your knee-jerk instincts to disagree and instead take the time to understand what is being written *in* *plain* *English.*

I made a simple statement. I said, "I don't think Jesus' message is corrupt." You replied to it and started putting words in my mouth. Just because someone's message is distorted for anothers ulterior motives doesn't mean that that's what the messenger intended to happen. Also, here's a new definition of corrupt that I don't think you knew:

"spoil text with copying errors: to make undesirable changes in meaning or errors in a text during copying"

I don't see how his message has been corrupted in this way either, since none of the things he says in the Gospels are corrupt. So, how have they been corrupted according to this definition?

Why don't you open up a copy of the New Testament and read Jesus' message *in* *plain* *English*, and then get back to us when you've actually read his message and have taken the time to understand it (which you obviously haven't done, since you can't even point out which part of it is so corrupt when asked)?

This thread is supposed to be about Jesus the person and his message, which you haven't commented on at all, other than saying that it's not a valuable source of information, while not providing your reasoning behind this view (since you can't, because you obviously haven't ever read the message of Christ).

Is English not your first language? I said that his message had been "corrupted" - meaning, interpolated, adulterated, tainted, etc by the unauthorized interventions by other individuals down the ages. This is an undisputed fact, and even the iskcon intellgentsia on this very thread agreed with it.

I meant it in this sense:

"immoral or dishonest: immoral or dishonest, especially as shown by the exploitation of a position of power or trust for personal gain"

I don't think Jesus' message was immoral or dishonest is what I meant. Believe it or not, there are different definitions for the same word.

QED the Bible is not a valid pramana and any religion based on such invalid pramanas is also invalid.

How do you know the words of Jesus aren't a valuable source of knowledge (the meaning of pranama)? Just because you say there's no knowledge in the words of Jesus doesn't make Jesus' message invalid. There are many people who say that there's no knowledge in the message of Sri Krishna, is that true? I mean, after all, someone did say that it isn't a valuable source of knowledge.

I'm honored to introduce everyone to this story [it should be done by Bollywood — or maybe it's actually a story derived from a Puranic story]:

"Marcelino Pan y Vino" [lit. Marcelino, Bread and Wine] (aka The Miracle of Marcelino) is a 1955 Spanish film. It was a resounding international success, so much so that other countries have produced versions of it. There has been an Italian, a Filipino, a Japanese-French television series based on the movie. The story, although heavily revised and somewhat modernized in both the book and film, dates back to an old medieval legend, one of many gathered together in a volume by Alfonso el Sabio

Plot

The story revolves around Marcelino, a young child abandoned as a baby on the steps of a monastery in eighteenth-century Spain. After trying, and failing, to find his parents, the monks realize that he is an orphan, and after searching unsuccessfully for someone to adopt him, decide to raise the child themselves. Marcelino grows into a cute, well-meaning, but mischievous and lonely boy who is always innocently getting into trouble. He has been warned by the monks not to visit the monastery attic, where a supposed bogeyman lives, but he ventures upstairs anyway, sees the supposed bogeyman, and tears off back down the stairs.

At a festival, Marcelino unintentionally causes havoc when he accidentally lets some animals loose, and the new local mayor, whom the monks would not let adopt the child because of his coarse behavior, uses the incident as an excuse to try to shut down the monastery.

Given the silent treatment by the monks, Marcelino gathers up the courage to once again enter the attic, where he sees, not a bogeyman, but a beautiful statue of Christ on the Cross. Remarking that the statue looks hungry, Marcelino steals some bread and wine and offers it to the statue, which miraculously comes to life, descends from the Cross, and eats and drinks what the boy has brought him. Eventually, the statue becomes Marcelino's best friend and confidante and begins to give him religious instruction. For his part, Marcelino realizes that the statue is Christ.

The monks know something is strange when they notice bread and wine disappearing, and arrange to spy on Marcelino. One day, the statue notices that Marcelino is pensive and brooding instead of happy, and tells him that he would like to give him a reward for his kindness. Marcelino answers, "I want only to see my mother, [she had died] and to see Yours after that". The statue cradles Marcelino in its arms, tells Marcelino to sleep - and Marcelino dies happy.

The monks witness the miracle through a crack in the attic door, and burst in just in time to see the dead Marcelino bathed in a heavenly glow. The statue returns to its place on the Cross, and Marcelino is buried underneath the chapel and venerated by all who visit the now flourishing monastery-turned-shrine.

The main story is told in flashback, and bookended by a more modern story in which a monk (played by Fernando Rey) visits a sick, possibly dying, girl, and tells her the story of Marcelino for inspiration. The film ends with the monk entering the now completely remodeled chapel in the monastery during Mass, and saying to the crucifix once kept in the attic: "We have been speaking about you, O Lord,", and then, to Marcelino's grave, which is situated nearby, "And about you, too, Marcelino".

The story is said to have many symbolic meanings, but is usually just enjoyed as a quietly moving religious fable, although some have seen a sinister meaning in the fact that Marcelino virtually asks to die and Christ grants his wish. The film remains one of the most famous and successful foreign films of the mid 1950's.

I saw that movie a few years back. I thought it was sweet I think, and I might be wrong, that the Catholic Church canonized the boy in the story as a saint. ((I could be wrong though... it's been years since I've read a book on saints))

Oh, ok. As long as you think it then....

Okay... well, could you please point out where Jesus' message is corrupt? Not Yahweh's message, not the disciples' messages, but Jesus' message. Please, I beg you to point out something he says that is corrupt.

I don't think that Jesus' message has been corrupted. I think that Yahweh's word (the Old Testament) is the word of men. I think that the letters of the apostles are the letters of men. But, I don't think that Jesus' message, that actual words of Jesus, has been corrupted. He doesn't say anything corrupt... so I don't think they've been corrupted.

though we should feel the pangs of seperation from krishna and want to go back to him to serve kirhsna and radharani do you guys feel that sometimes you get so caught up in material problems that you forget that you have to go back. Even if radharani showed us that this is important, man does life have a solid hold on you.

 

How do you guys cope with "return to material life" because rarely do I care but sometimes I really get pulled back by one situation or another. I guess you can call it a test but would like you know you opinion on it.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

I fix my mind on the Lotus Feet of Radharani and chant the Holy Names. If the world keeps pulling me in, I wrap my mind and spirit closer and closer around Her Lotus Feet. She is a Merciful Saviouress from the hideous wheel of Samsara. I try to remember that Radha and Krishna don't expect perfection all the time. They appreciate the fact that we're trying and realize that we are stuck in the material world and it can be hard to get out of it's tight grip.

Jai Radha-Kanta!

(Jayadeva Goswami's Dasavatara Stotra- A Must Read!)

 

Hare Krishna and Jai Nitai

indulekhadasi

I love the Gita Govinda! It's so beautiful!

Radhe Radhe! Hare Krishna!

Hare Krsna

Plase accept my humble obeisances. All glories to guru and gaurana.

 

I am looking for the kurma mantra and havent been able to find it. I did find (in another thread) 'aum aam kum kurmaaya namah' but the shrim and hrim seemed to be missing.

 

I was hoping someone knew it and could kindly tell me what it is.

 

It would be highly appreciated.

 

Regards

Girish K

I like this one... it's from the Gita Govinda:

Ksitir Atavipularatare Tava Tishati Prsthe| Dharani-Dharana-Kina-Chakra-Garisthe| Kesava Dhrta-Kaccapa-Rupa Jaya Jagadisha Hare

O Keshava! You have become incarnate as Kurma! The world rested on the ample expanse of Your shell, creating circular marks on it! Victory to you, O Hari, Lord of the Universe!

Radhe Radhe! Jai Radha-Kanta ki Jai!

Well... at least one has been shut down. Too bad millions are still out there to fill it's place. Jai Gopala... :/

no no Indulekhaji, I take more inspiration from you and your deep thoughts. I thank you for being such a positive motivation and I thank radhe radhe for opening this thread.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

I thank you and Indulekha for offering your wonderful insight You guys always teach me so much!

Radhe Radhe! Jai Radha-Kanta!

I just found this lovely article from the Sri Sri Radha-Krishna Temple in Utah:

Jesus through Vaishnava Eyes

By Shaunaka Rishi Dasa

Shaunaka Rishi Dasa is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies.

I’ve an Indian friend who when he was seven moved with his family from India to England. Where he was enrolled at a new school. On his first day he was asked to speak to the class about a saint from his Vaishnava tradition. Enthusiastically he began to tell the story of the saint called Ishu, who was born in a cowshed, was visited by three holy men, performed many amazing miracles, walked on water and spoke a wonderful sermon on a mountain. Of course, he was telling the story of Christ. But he was bewildered to hear that the teacher laid claim to Ishu for herself and her friends and she let him know that this was her Lord and her story, not his.

He was very upset about this, because Ishu’s tale was his favourite story. You see, in a sense, Vaishnavas don’t really see Jesus as a Christian at all. (Of course Jesus didn’t either because the term had not been used during His lifetime). In Vaishnava thought church or temple membership, or belief is not as significant as spiritual practice (which is called sadhana in sanskrit). As there is no Church of Vaishnavaism everyone holds their own spiritual and philosophical opinions. It is difficult then to understand someone’s spirituality simply by looking at their religious trappings. So, in India it is more common to hear someone ask, “What is your practice (or sadhana)?” than, “What do you believe?”

Then when we ask how we can see spirituality in Vaishnavas, the answer comes, by behaviour and practice. We can ask are we humble, are we tolerant and are we non-violent, and can we control our senses and our mind? Are we aware of others suffering and are we willing to give up our comfort to help them? Looking at these criteria Jesus measures up as a Sadhu, a holy man. He preached a universal message, love of God and love of brother, which was beyond any sectarianism or selfishness. Jesus was one of those people who appealed from heart to heart, and that’s what makes him such a good Vaishnava Saint. In my particular tradition, and among other Vaishnavas, He is seen as much more, as an Avatar, specifically a Shaktavesha Avatar or an empowered incarnation. This means that God has sent Him to us for a specific mission to fulfil God’s will on earth.

When I was 14 I began a personal and serious study of the New Testament. I wanted to understand what Christ had to say about things so I paid particular attention to the words of Jesus Himself. I can see now that the whole direction of my life was determined by this formative study and by the thoughtfulness invoked by it.

I read such passages as Luke 5: “forsake all and follow me”. I remember distinctly, as a 14 year old developing my own understanding of what that meant. I had formed a sense of mission and vocation by reading the Bible, seeing that the love of God should be shared with others. The greatest commandment, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our words and all our deeds, and love our neighbour as ourselves struck me as an instruction, as a plea and actually, as a necessity. Considering how to do to that, how to forsake all and follow God out of love, has provided me my greatest challenge in life.

As a young boy, that meant giving up sitting in front of the TV with my cup of coffee, two sugars and a biscuit (these were the comforts of my life at that time). It meant to go down to the town centre of Wexford, my hometown, stand in the Bullring, and preach the glory of love of God to all who wanted to hear it. From my reading of Christ’s words and the example of his life, I knew that is what I was called to do, but did I do it? No, I couldn’t. That surrender to God I had to postpone. The instructions and teachings of Christ were crystal clear to me but I wasn’t having an easy time trying to follow them. (Isn’t it funny how it sometimes seems easier to fight for our principles than to actually follow them). Thus my script was written, the challenge laid down, a challenge that Christ had posed to the whole world. “He who has ears let him hear”, he would say. I seemed to have those unfortunate ears.

Christ was different. He was radically different. He preached for three years and got killed for it. He gave everything. A friend betrayed him. We have all had some experience where someone we trust turns on us but imagine how we would feel if a friend betrayed us to death? Does the word forgiveness spring to mind? Not in my case, but it comes a close second. In Vaishnava scripture it says that forgiveness is the principal quality of a civilised man, and civilisation is measured in terms of spiritual qualities rather than economic or scientific advancement. Its quite clear to me where Jesus hung his hat on that issue.

For instance in our civilised world who would get away with going to a funeral, approaching the chief mourner and asking him to surrender everything to God NOW, as Jesus did. When the chief mourner replied, “But I’ve got to bury my father”, Christ said, “let the dead bury the dead”. (I wonder what the tabloids in those days had to say about that?). Of course, Jesus didn’t get away with this either but he had the courage of His convictions, He spoke the truth, the absolute truth to a materialistic society and risked life and limb for His mission. I wonder how He might fare today with His uncompromising stand on Hypocrites and whited sepulchres? For instance if he was to visit Belfast he might have problems being heard unless He declared first if he were a Catholic or a Protestant Christian.

And how did an Irish chap like me become a Vaishnava priest? Why not a Catholic priest or at least a Christian of some sort. There is certainly a great range of Christian sects to choose from these days. Maybe they are becoming as diverse as the Vaishnavas? Anyway, I first encountered Vaishnava spirituality through the Vaishnava tradition of the great medieval saint Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, that’s a lot of words that boil down to mean I met the Hare Krishnas. At the age of 18, in Dublin I bumped into a shaven headed, saffron robed fellow and visited his temple ashram, his monastery, so to speak. I had been visiting all kinds of religious groups—Christian and otherwise but these were surprisingly serious chaps.

They rose at four in the morning for prayer, study and chanting. By the time breakfast came at 8.30am I felt like I had done a full days work only to find that the full days work was just about to begin! The captivating thing for me though was the fact that every act was to be offered to God with love, every word spoken in His favour, every song sung for His pleasure, every dance for His eyes and all food prepared and offered first for His taste. Along with this went an ancient philosophy that answered more questions than I had ever asked. But what got me about these devotees of Krishna was what I saw as their practice of Christianity, even though they didn’t actually call themselves Christians.

They banded together in small groups, sung the praise of God with drums and loud clashing cymbals, wore flowing robes, abandoned the material world and preached in the public market places. That’s actually a description of the early Christians but the Krishna ’s did this as well. I loved the chanting of Hare Krishna. I’m sure you have seen the devotees chanting in public somewhere. They chant Sanskrit names of God Hare, Krishna and Rama, meaning ’spirititual happiness’, ‘all attractive person’ and ‘reservoir of pleasure’. Lovely names and they form a prayer to be engaged in the service of God.

The idea of chanting Gods name, any name we choose to chant, is that we come into direct contact with God Himself, as his name and His Person are not different, the Vaishnava story goes. (But don’t take my word for it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating). I think it was the spontaneous happiness produced by the music, the chant and the dancing that touched my heart so much and it continues to do so to this day. For me it was “Hallowed by thy name” in practice. The practice may look strange to some but that is not the point. I suppose it depends on our cultural view but nuns may look just as strange as naked Sadhus. Is that a reflection of their spiritual qualities or just their dress sense? To me this spiritual practice was being performed in the essential spirit of Christianity.

If we look in the Vaishnava scripture, Bhagavad-gita, we hear Lord Krishna asking us to abandon all our sectarianism and just surrender to Him, in love. He vows to protect us from evil and from fear. I hear the same “forsake all and follow me” message, the same call to surrender and the same reassurance.

Jesus shows this struggle of surrender during his evening in the garden of Gethsemane . His sincere appeal to the Lord to let the cup pass from him, although He was willing to go through with His Father’s command. I have always found myself in this kind of dilemma, although without the same willingness to do the needful that Christ had. All of us who struggle with spirituality wonder if we are capable of making the effort, or if we are doomed to failure and hypocrisy? Can we meet the challenge? Christ’s example is so relevant for all of us who want to practise a spiritual life, and even for those who just want to be good. But how many of us are willing to sacrifice our desires in favour of the will of God, even in small ways .

When we look at his experience during his traumatic arrest, trial and crucifixion we see a man at peace within Himself and with the world. He was condemned for his zeal and for his perceived threat to society, because he was misunderstood. I have experienced that to a lesser degree in my life - being condemned for being a Hare Krishna, for being different and incomprehensible. I have been spat at and derided, but not crucified. I have no idea what Jesus had to give up, in His early thirties, so that I, in my early forties, could be inspired to follow the Godly path.

The fact is I can see myself in Jesus. I recognise and empathise with His life, His temptations and His suffering. But I can see a lot more in Him than my faltering attempts at spirituality. I can see someone transcending the materialism of this world. Vaishnavas as much as anyone talk much about this noble ideal but it is a true celebration when someone, anyone of any tradition begins to make sense, spiritually. And so many of us don’t seem to make sense spiritually.

We can acquire a religious reputation, be addressed by religious titles. We can easily learn to say the right thing and wear the appropriate clothes and chant the right passwords for all religious occasions, and look passably good. But the example of Jesus and other saints challenge any insincerity in our heart, any duplicity and hypocrisy. They display another level of faith, a level called love and their love is beyond our need to be right about everything, to dominate others and to demand them to conform to our perception. They are humble. Its about a deep change of heart. Its about knowing God as a friend and as a lover. Its about being happy to love God with the full trust that He will take care of us in all circumstances, just as a small child will trust their father or mother. It’s about accepting absence of god in our lives as enthusiastically as His embrace.

Its difficult for us to neatly categorise Jesus, this lover of God, as a Christian or a Jew. He talked only of His Father and he was not enamoured of politics, religion or wealth as He experienced them. God’s service was His life, His love and his religion.

Remember my Indian friend who loved Ishu so much? What about him? Was he a follower of Christ? Could he have a personal relationship with God? Would he have to “bath in the blood of the Lamb” first? (a terrible option for vegetarians). These are important questions though, “Can a Vaishnava follow Jesus?”; “Can a Vaishnava love god with all his heart and soul?”; “Do you have to be a Christian to follow Christ?” ; even “Who owns Christ?.”

The Sanskrit word acharya means ‘one who teaches by example’. For Vaishnavas, Christ is an acharya. His example is a light to any of us in this world who want to take up the serious practise of spiritual life. His message is no different from the message preached in another time and place by Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya. It would be a great shame if we allowed our Vaishnavasm, our Islam, our Judaism or indeed our Christianity to stand in the way of being able to follow the teachings and example of such a great soul as Lord Jesus Christ.

Shaunaka Rishi Dasa

I have not heared that but I wouldn't have any reason to doubt that.

 

Yes, Bhaumasura is the same as Narakasura- I could tell when you explained about the 16.108 wives.

Well... I like to think that was the case. I mean, it's either that or he raped Her. which is a thought I can't even stand to entertain. I don't think that was the case though, because the only person who would be able to do that to Radharani would be a real Naraka-asura, and we know what Sri Krishna does to them! Poor Radharani... Her life was so hard. But, now She's in Goloka with Her Divine Love, and there is no sadness and only perfect love and joy

I love the pastime of the 16,108 wives! It's too sweet

Jai Radha-Madhava!

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up on this thread very closely. Glad to see we are on the same page.

 

Those books of the Old Testament where authored at different times by different men and can not be seen as a whole although there is a common theme.

 

In Genesis we read that mankind was given a VEGAN diet by the ELOHIM, translated as God. Then in another book it specifies what animals can be killed for food and which ones not to touch.

 

In one book there are detailed proscriptions on animal sacrifice and another book it says killing an ox is the same as killing a man and that animal sacrifices are not an abomination to God.

 

And they all claim "Thus saith the Lord".

 

This guy ragu is simply a disturbance. He only wants to argue.

I totally agree. I've read the Bible... Jesus' message is completely different from Yahweh's. Have you ever heard of the Gnostic Christians? They believed in Jesus, but they didn't believe in Yahweh. I especially like the sect called the Manichaens (mostly b/c they honored the Buddha, and I have such great respect for Him).

Radhe Radhe!

When Radharani was having conjugal pastimes in Vrindavan when Krishna was still there she was already married to a guy named Abhimanyu (not the Abhimanyu of Mahabharata). Her in-laws gave her a lot of trouble because she hardly attended to her wifely duties. But Radharani was so powerful that no other man but Krishna could gaze at her, not even Abhimanyu.

 

I am sure Satyabhama was aware that she was an incarnation of Radharani. Otherwise why would she ask Vishwakarma to make a simple looking Krishna?

 

You mean Bhaumasura right? Or is Narakasura another name for Bhaumasura? I wrote a book about Bhaumasura when I was 7. I still have the tape of me reciting it.

I've heard that when Abhimanyu was "with" Her, She'd use the power of Maya to make a shadow-self (making him think that he was with Her when he wasn't), and She'd go to the forests to see Sri Krishna and Her Sakhis. Has anyone else ever heard of that? I've also heard that She made the same shadow-image appear and take Her place on Her wedding day.

I agree... that only makes sense, since Krishna tells Arjuna that He remembers all of His previous incarnations, while Arjuna doesn't. So, if Sri Krishna remembers His incarnations, why wouldn't Srimati Radharani?

I think Narakasura is another name for Bhaumasura... Narakasura (literally, "hell-demon" LOL) was also the one that kidnapped the 16,108 Brahmin wives and raped them, so when they couldn't go back to their husbands Sri Krishna married them on the spot. Another lovely pastime

Radhe Radhe!

What the negative section never seems to realize is that the Old Testament was written by Hebrews from a Hebrew-centric viewpoint and with all it's accompaning prejudices that we held by the writter.

 

I don't for one second believe everything that says "Thus saith the Lord" was actually spoken by the Lord. The atrocities upon other peoples that are written down as being done under the will of Yahweh have more in common with Al-Qaida and ilk like Bin-Laden then they do of transcendental scripture.

 

Anybody can write anything and claim it was told to them by God. Only fools follow such people. And only fools try to hold God responsible for the actions done "in His name" by such illusioned fanatics.

That's exactly what I've been saying! Notice that he hasn't replied to either of my posts yet?

Hare Krsna!

Good thing in Goloka there is no such thing such as the separation of Radha and Krishna!

 

It was some years later. 30 or 50 years about. She could tolerate for all those years because she kept thinking "Krishna said he will come back and Krishna won't lie..." but after a while she gave up hope. Then she began to associate with Krishna as Satyabhama but it was not as enjoyable because of the awe and reverence. However Satyabhama had Vishwakarma make a very life like deity of Krishna (without a crown and all that jewelry- typical Vrindavan style Krishna). She used to enjoy pastimes with this deity in a secluded garden in Dwarika.

Yes! If it weren't for that, I'd be mourning forever, rather than rejoicing that They're together now

Did Her family arrange Her a marriage during that time? I hope not... I bet She would've hated that Did Satyabhama know that She was Radharani in Her past-life? I love the story where She and Krishna save Aditi's earrings from the Narakasura!

Radhe Radhe!

And once again, to illustrate the principle of the Judeo-Christian "God's" partiality, we have this passage from Exodus 11.4-8:

 

So Moses said, "This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any man or animal.' Then you will know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.

 

Does Sri Vishnu play racial or ethnic favorites?

 

Please feel free to consult the original text for better appreciation of the context.

This discussion is about Jesus, not Yahweh.

Jesus said:

"Treat others as you would like to be treated.", "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay one's life down for one's friends.", "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the beam in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself do not see the beam in your own eye? You who do this are hypocritical. First, take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of the eye of your neighbor.", and "Let anyone who is among you that is without sin cast the first stone at her."

And his followers said:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

Jesus' message was completely different from Yahweh's. Use quotes from Jesus that show that he was racist or whatever else you want to claim. Jesus wasn't Yahweh, and he didn't preach Yahweh's message.