Srila Prabhupada on Christians and Guru

[Guest guest]

Madhudviṣa: Is there any way for a Christian to, without the help of a spiritual master, to reach the spiritual sky through believing in the words of Jesus Christ and trying to follow his teachings?

Prabhupāda: I don’t follow.

 

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Can a Christian in this age, without a spiritual master, but by reading the Bible and following Jesus’s words, reach the...

 

Prabhupāda: When you read Bible, you follow spiritual master. How can you say without? As soon as you read Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means you are following spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without spiritual master?

 

Madhudviṣa: I was referring to a living spiritual master.

 

Prabhupāda: Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that “by reading Bible,” when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

[Guest guest]

so we do not have to be initiated by a Guru in the flesh? if we read books from Gurus no longer incarnate, we can reach liberation by following the instructions in their books?

[theist 1]

I always liked the section you quoted because of how Prabhupada reacted to the term "living spiritual master".

 

This usually ends up in a circular debate over terms like initiation and no one changes their opinion. But one thing Prabhupada pointed to was a need for a siksa guru to help one understand Christ (or Krsna's) instructions. In Prabhupada's books we find we have a verse followed by a commentary. That commentary is a form of siksa guru also. But even then I find it necessary to have help understanding the commentary. Even though the Lord and guru's instructions are really clear the mind has a strong tendancy to speculate away the truth. So it is best to always crosscheck everything through prayer to Caitya-guru and consultation with the more advanced.

 

Our dependance on Guru is absolute rather you have a formal intiation or not. The idea that someone is self-taught is a myth.The principle is that we always need the help of those more advanced stands, initiation ceremony or not.

 

"Lean not to thine own understanding." -Bible

 

 

so we do not have to be initiated by a Guru in the flesh?

 

Here are some points we can conptemplate on.

 

What is really meant by Guru "in the flesh"? We are not being initiated by the Guru's flesh we are being initiated by the Guru himself who should be living free from fleshly bondage. We are "in the flesh" not Guru.

 

Nor does the guru initiate flesh. He initiates (conveys transcendental reality) to the self within the body.

 

So to play on your question we can ask, "Do we have to be in the flesh to be initiated by Guru?" Of what importance is the flesh?

 

Another is which will be more fruitful for you in terms of Krsna consciousness, accepting a guru "in the flesh" who you really have little faith in and receive little inspiration from, just for the sake of "being initiated" or accepting a guru who may be still on earth in vani form only but who inspires you and gives you knowledge and realization in Krsna consciousness?

 

So Guru must in fact be Guru or the question is meaningless. And if they are in fact living on the same plane of self and God realization it would make sense to surrender, to render service to the one whom is more accessable to you. Guru comes seemingly into flesh only because we the fallen are so locked into material sense perception that we can't readily receive instructions except throuh these senses. But Guru must be Guru.

 

I have come to believe that each soul must individually have this questioned personally answered for them by the Lord in the heart. There are just too many different opinons floating around all using scripture to back up their ideas for we the uneducated to be able to sort through it all. Better we just ask Krsna to show us His version. Otherwise we will just entangled in the ritvik vs. iskcon controversy, or others similiar, and feel those are the only two options available.

 

Hare Krsna

 

please read the quotation below that I use as a signature.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Another is which will be more fruitful for you in terms of Krsna consciousness, accepting a guru "in the flesh" who you really have little faith in and receive little inspiration from, just for the sake of "being initiated" or accepting a guru who may be still on earth in vani form only but who inspires you and gives you knowledge and realization in Krsna consciousness?

On this point, we can ask ourselves what is more beneficial:

 

1) To have taken initiation and received the official ISKCON stamp from Kirtanananda, or Harikesh, or Swami X who later proved themselves to not be qualified to act as guru.

 

or

 

2) To have taken shelter of Srila Prabhupada through his instructions.

 

Which would have been better for the thousands of devotees who were initiated by these people and latter left ISKCON and Prabhupada because their guru's "fell down".

 

After their gurus have fallen and they have lost faith in ISKCON, then the GBC tells them to put their faith in Prabhupada. If they can put their faith in Prabhupada after their gurus have fallen, then why can't they do the same from the beginning.

 

ISKCON is losing thousands of devotees every year because they are not stressing Srila Prabhupada to the devotees.

[theist 1]

After their gurus have fallen and they have lost faith in ISKCON, then the GBC tells them to put their faith in Prabhupada. If they can put their faith in Prabhupada after their gurus have fallen, then why can't they do the same from the beginning.

[vijay 0]

.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Prabhupāda: When you read Bible, you follow spiritual master. How can you say without? As soon as you read Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ, that means you are following spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without spiritual master?

 

Madhudviṣa: I was referring to a living spiritual master.

 

Prabhupāda: Spiritual master is not the question of... Spiritual master is eternal. Spiritual master is eternal. So your question is without spiritual master. Without spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept. As you say that “by reading Bible,” when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

 

SP makes two important points:

 

1. that by acceptance of the writings of a guru, one accepts the guru's authority.

 

2. (as in highlighted quote) that the disciplic succession continues from the author of the text through the chain of followers, which is exactly our concept of parampara where reading Vyasadeva's Bhagavatam, with Srila Prabhupada's purports, we are connected to both Vyasa and SP. SP represents Vyasa, Prabhupada's disciples explaining Prabhupada's teachings represent SP.

 

it is a clear endorsment of both the disciplic succession and the legitimate following of a teacher by acceptance of his written instructions.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

2. (as in highlighted quote) that the disciplic succession continues from the author of the text through the chain of followers, which is exactly our concept of parampara where reading Vyasadeva's Bhagavatam, with Srila Prabhupada's purports, we are connected to both Vyasa and SP. SP represents Vyasa, Prabhupada's disciples explaining Prabhupada's teachings represent SP.

I can't agree with that conclusion. Where in the Christian church is there a disciplic succession continuing? The emphasis of the conversation is on linking with the spiritual master through his books. The devotees tried to say the Christians do not have a living spiritual master, and in reply they were told that through the books he is living eternally. That certainly isn't refering to some priest or clergyman that you meet at the church.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I can't agree with that conclusion. Where in the Christian church is there a disciplic succession continuing?

 

sorry, I was not clear. of course our succession is different, yet what SP refers to here is without doubt a concept of a disciplic succession where current clergy represents Jesus.

[bija 0]

I can see Kulapavana's point here.

 

when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

I thought also that the priest/clergyman is in some way referred to as a living representative of Jesus Christ as pointed out by Srila Prabhupada.

 

It is interesting when Srila Prabhupada refers to christian doctrine he refers to Catholic doctrines alot. The Catholic church hold a tradition that most protestants do not.There is a sacrament passed on called confirmation, recieved by laying on of hands. The reception in confirmation of laying on of hands, represents the young candidates acceptance of the working of the Holy Spirit/Paramatma in their lives. And the empowerment to live the gospel and to go out and share it with the world.

This laying on of hands is received from a Bishop. Everything is handed down in a disciplic line you might say. Catholic's say their disciplic line descends from Saint Peter who was commisioned by Jesus Christ. Ofcourse this is debatable, and most protestants deny this is a fact.

All sacraments in the Catholic Church are handed down in this disciplic way. Marriage, baptism, holy communion, ordination into priesthood,etc.

[bija 0]

I can remember some years ago when I was getting more into KC, a friend gave me some tapes of lectures of Bhavananda Swami in Melbourne in the eighties.

On one particular tape in question and answer time he was harshly criticisizing christians and how they do not have a disciplic succession. And how the Hare Krsna's do.

Straight away I knew he was teaching false things with a poor fund of knowledge. Obviously accepted by those who were only aware of protestant christianity, but not by me, a Catholic boy from way back.

I do not know of all the times Srila Prabhupada had discourses with christians.

But the books I have read, or videos I have seen, it is often with Catholic clergy.

With some insight, and closer scrutiny it seems that Srila Prabhupada is talking from his knowledge of Catholic practice, where,

when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ

I knew straight away that Bhavananda was talking and claiming authority about a subject he was not schooled about. I may be presumming, but it may be possible that his background and understandings were protestant. Many protestants can be totally ignorant of Catholic practice and even sometimes harshly critical of it.

This is why I love Srila Prabhupada, because he speaks on subjects with authority and is well schooled.

[Guest guest]

Catholic beliefs and KC beliefs are totally different. They are not even close. I too come from an Italian Catholic family. The teaching of all the Popes contradicts vedic teachings. And sometimes Papal edicts clearly damn those who follow false religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. - stating that salvation is alone granted thru the Roman Catholic Church.

 

So if Jesus teachings are the same as the Catholic church (I doubt they are), then they have nothing whatsoever to do with KC. The Catholic Church believes heathen false religionists are eternally damned.

[Guest guest]

when Pope John Paul II visited India in 2000, he had a meeting with Catholic leaders in India, in how to better reach the lost souls of India (meaning those following vedic traditions). So if he speaks for Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ wants to convert all Hare Krishnas to Catholicism. Make no mistake about it - the Catholic church is a completely different religion than any eastern religion.

[bija 0]

Thanks for sharing your insights, Guest.

 

Personally I try not to get into conversations about the right and wrongs of different religions. And by no means was I making a comparative example of Catholic/Hare Krsna.

 

What I was trying to do was shed some light on jndasa's following question:

Where in the Christian church is there a disciplic succession continuing?

Catholics believe in their apostolical/disciplic succession; if others do not, so be it.

[theist 1]

To look for a disciplic chain in Christianity we come to a familar question. Diksa or Shiksa. That estimation will make a difference in the evaluation.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Certainly in the Christian faith, the connection of the devotees' is primarily with Christ, not with the the priest who performs the ritual. And as far as I am aware, they don't need to be re-baptised if the priest is later found to be doing sinful things.

 

Some examples proving this is that no one prayers to their pastor and no one worships their pastor. The connection is directly with Christ. And that is what Prabhupada is obviously speaking about here when he says the guru is eternal.

[bija 0]

 

As you say that “by reading Bible,” when you read Bible that means you are following the spiritual master represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

Some examples proving this is that no one prayers to their pastor and no one worships their pastor. The connection is directly with Christ. And that is what Prabhupada is obviously speaking about here when he says the guru is eternal. quote by jndasa

Yes I think so too jndasa. For the christian the link is strongly with Lord Jesus Christ and this is what Prabhupada is pointing out.

I think the previous Guest made an interesting point about not comparing christian/Hare Krsna, in that the traditions followed are very different in many ways.

This is where I find Srila Prabhupada such a Master at teaching his followers. As can be seen from his conversation in the initial post, he draws out for his disciples, the essence you might say, of the christian way, to enlighten his disciples knowledge deeper about both the christian and vedic paths. I can say Prabhupada's teachings have also done the very same thing for me. As I am slowly growing into his teachings my insights into the tradition I was born into have developed. And even though I am somewhat externally more expressed as Hare Krsna(if you can say that), I am probably a better Catholic than I have ever been. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

 

To look for a disciplic chain in Christianity we come to a familar question. Diksa or Shiksa. That estimation will make a difference in the evaluation. quote by theist

This is interesting Theist. This also brings out the point that the previous Guest made about comparisons. Maybe the comparisons are not so easy to bring out, or black and white. Speaking about christianity in general, it seems to be more of a siksa process in that the priest/pastor gives instruction each sunday. But it is not easy to talk in terms of Diksa or Siksa. There are so many contradictions. For example, what is the new life of water baptism? The confirmation of the Holy Spirit in Catholicism? Or even the priest acting on behalf of Christ in the Catholic sacrament of confession, being able to forgive the participants sins?

But on the other hand. In the Catholic Churches, the passing on of sacred rights such as priesthood, ordination of bishops etc; you could say is a direct process similar to diksa. A direct line believed to be in existence since Saint Peter.

 

Or when talking to a christian, using the term guru in regards to Jesus Christ may be totally misunderstood. Or even degrading in the christians view. Even with an in depth study of what an empowered incarnation is.

[Guest guest]

 

Or when talking to a christian, using the term guru in regards to Jesus Christ may be totally misunderstood. Or even degrading in the christians view.

Yes, because Catholic and Protestant Christians believe Jesus Christ is God Almighty; the second person of the Triune Godhead.

[theist 1]

 

Yes, because Catholic and Protestant Christians believe Jesus Christ is God Almighty; the second person of the Triune Godhead.

 

This is where Christians experiencxe much confusion and find themselves at the edge of a very dangerous abyss and don't know it.

 

Christ taught acintya bhedabheda-tattva. He said "I and my father are one." He also said the "Father is greater than I." Contradictory? No, acintya.

 

The abyss they are standing close to is impersonalism even though they have the basic conception of duality presently. Other places it is stated that Christ came to teach us to be as he is. Does that mean we will also be God? Well the answer is yes and no. Just as it is with Jesus, and even now is with us, but we have forgotten.

 

But the impersonal spin is that Jesus is a human manifestation of God the impersonal formless light and yada yada yada, and then just as he went back to merge into the formless oness of God so will we when we follow become like him, jivanmukta.

 

Srila Prabhupada used the term 'The Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead'.

 

A better way to view Christians is as younger brothers in theism. Not that we are so old and experienced but we have accepted access to a more complete teaching (by far) of these details. Somehow we need to bring such concepts into Christianity. We can't do that if we keep a sectarian mindset and view them as competitors or the opposition. They may view us that way but we must keep to a higher vision.

 

We need to give protect them from the wolves of the impersonalists and voidists. I believe this to be directly in line with Prabhupada's mission and is a great service we can offer to Lord Jesus Christ.

[bija 0]

Srila Prabhupada was situated on the transcendantal platform. And due to this could see things clearly as they are. I think this is where we get into so much trouble regarding sectarianism. Because we are not situated on this transcendental platform we get caught up in the external nature of things.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakura in his book Sri Krsna Samhita talks about the need for different levels of spirituality for each persons qualification. He explains that there are two types of devotees - Swanlike and Asslike. He says Swanlike devotees can also be found in the neopyhte(beginner) devotee as well as more advanced devotees. And that their concern is not sectarian debate or, downgrading a person's qualification and ability to understand spiritual truths. But the concern is to raise one's own standards to a higher level(adhikari).

He says the Asslike devotee's can be situated on the beginner or intermediate stage, and that they enter quarrel and sectarian debate about whose qualification is greater. Bhaktivinoda says this sectarian mentality has been prevalent in society since time immemorial. And he goes on to say, that the Asslike devotee can even perpetuate grossly harmful acts to his fellow beings to justify his own understandings.

Thakura's admonition is to develop Swanlike mentality.

 

And surely in all wisdom; to assist your fellow beings in their spiritual quest and developing of deeper spiritual insights is a very noble thing. A perfect example of such a transcendental soul can be found in Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

The trinity is a extremely important doctrine in orthodox Christianity. It has been firmly established as an essential doctrine within all denominations that are considered Orthodox, and all those who oppose the Triune Godhead teaching, are considered heretics.

 

 

Within Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is a single Being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a communion of three persons (personae, prosopa): Father (the Source, the Eternal Majesty); the Son (the eternal Logos or Word, incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth); and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th Century AD, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "One God in Three Persons," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases," share a single Divine essence, being, or nature.

 

 

We need to give protect them from the wolves of the impersonalists and voidists

 

Interesting choice of words with the wolf analogy. Because Christians view those who mix eastern teachings (like the Bhagavad Gita) with the Holy Bible, as the wolves in sheep's clothing. No born again Christian would dare listen to anything a Vaishnava/Smarta/Saivite would say in matters of faith or doctrine. They think we are lost souls; and if we tried to convince them that our beliefs are similar, they would tell us that we are misguided fools trying to mix satanic heresies with pure biblical truths.

 

You see, Christians follow the Holy Bible (Genesis thru Revelation), and therfore they must heed the strong admonition of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament:

 

 

"There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

-- Galatians 1:6-8

 

Here is what a respected Christian site has to say about Hare Krishnas, Christ and Krishna:

 

 

According to Scripture, Jesus Christ is God Almighty who became a man in order to die for the sins of the world. He has been God from all eternity. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ISKCON denies this by making Christ no more than Krishna's son. "Jesus is the son, and Krsna is the Father, and Jesus is Krsna's son" (Jesus Loves Krsna, Los Angeles Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, n.d., p. 26).

 

Since ISKCON has a different God, a different Jesus, and a different way of salvation from what the Bible reveals, it is impossible for there to be any compatibility between the two. They differ on all crucial issues. A person must choose between Krishna and Jesus Christ; no harmony can exist between the sect of Hare Krishna and Christianity.

 

source: greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/01chap04/default.htm

 

Christian teaching on salvation vs. Gaudiya teaching:

 

 

The Bible teaches that all of us have sinned against a holy God and are therefore in need of a Savior: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23); "For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). This is not so in the teachings of ISKCON. According to ISKCON, salva-tion must be earned by performing a series of works. To get rid of the ignorance, one must practice disciplinary devotion by chanting the name of God, hearing and singing his praises, meditating upon the divine play and deeds of KRSNA, and engaging in the rites and ceremonies of worship. One must also repeat the name of God to the count of beads (Abhay Charan de Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhagavad-Gita As It Is p. 326).

Self-denial and sacrifice are crucial for salvation in ISKCON. Note the following quotation: All these performers who know the meaning of sacrifice become cleansed of sinful reactions, and, having tasted the nectar of the remnants of such sacrifices, they go to the supreme eternal atmosphere (ibid p. 81).

 

The Passantinos have done extensive research in the area of the cults, and they offer pertinent comments regarding salvation in ISKCON:

 

Salvation in Hare Krishna is thoroughly entwined with the Hindu concept of karma, or retributive justice. This teaching, which requires belief in rein-carnation and/or transmigration of the soul, says that one's deeds, good and bad, are measured and judged either for or against him. Only when his good deeds have "atoned" for his bad deeds (and he is thus cleansed of this evil world) can he realize his oneness with Krishna and cease his cycles of rebirth. The idea of karma and reincarnation is anti-biblical. Is it just or reasonable for a man to suffer in this life or be required to atone for sins in this life that he committed in a previous life that he doesn’t even remember? How can suf-fering for an unknown sin reform the sinner and mature him to the point where he no longer performs that sin? Such so-called justice is cruel and absolutely opposed to the God of the Bible (Robert and Gretchen Passantino, op. cit., p.150).

 

source: greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/01chap04/default.htm

 

 

Orthodox Christian beliefs as you can see are very different from Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[theist 1]

Yeah, it might be best not to quote their views on Hare Krsna. I skipped the quote because I know what is most likely there and I choose not to hear it.

 

The point is if one wants to to help them in some way then you can't approach them in so-called "devotee clothes" or quotations from from books that they won't accept it etc. You will have to be more clever.

 

And although I have spent and wasted so much time and energy myself speaking about the shortcomings in their understanding of Jesus's words I have realized that it was all useless on my part.

 

There are so many things wrong with their present theology but what does that have to do with me. I still think I am a material body so my way of viewing things is also screwed up.

 

If we can somehow help then fine otherwise why even worry about is my stance now.