mrs.moore Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 A cowherd boy also has human form. yes but not gross material human. just human-like. it's a spiwitual form. made of sparkly otherworldly magical stuff. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.moore Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Genuine Guru can only "control" the disciple by love and affection, in the same way the Srimati Radharani "controls" or directs her sakhis. so, what's it like being controlled by love and affection? is it nice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhakta Don Muntean Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 What a contradiction in terms. The requirement of absolute 'surrender' is a requirement of complete control of the guru over the said disciple. There is an non-negotiable command for diksa initiation which establishes this absolute control. That's what all the controversy and corruption is about.I will never surrender to another human being. That is diabolical and a very bizarre condition for linking up to a loving God. You don't have to surrender to anyone but God as an absolute power sure there has been abuse of this in ISKCON but - you're not being fair in that every faith has this aspect - including the christian faith - in fact - many evangelical 'leaders' keep their 'flock' on a very short leash. You're generalizing and you're being unfair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 There have been reported incidents as late as 2005. Nothing really changes except for the pressures exerted by legal authorities. Otherwise these little ones would still be raped by these patholigical weirdos in robes and beads. And please stop copy-pasting all these verses. They don't make a very clear point. They are a long-winded puffing of no specific statement. I was wondering when the word bitter would show up. I was not personally attacked or mistreated because I would never be so 'surrendered' to allow such a thing. Iv'e witnessed and was privy to a lot of others abuses. That is bad enough. It doesn't make me bitter. Just much wiser and incapable of being duped. Furthermore what kind of mercy calls itself master and makes hundred and one demands. What kind of mercy catalogues offenses for the most minor actions. What kind of mercy has their 'loved ones' prostrating themselves in anxiety for committing the slighest infractions. Rubbish. Sell it to somebody with their head firmly lodged in their backside. The abuses mostly took place after l977. after His Divine Grace entered maha samadhi. You may have been bruised and thinks this way but your opinion is relative to your own mental quantum. Somany disciples, women and others were ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 This is ridiculous. Genuine Guru can only "control" the disciple by love and affection, in the same way the Srimati Radharani "controls" or directs her sakhis. You have a twisted view of anything spiritual because of your bad experience with bhogus ecllesiastically appointed whatever they are. But guru they are not. Kindly read these verses: The Injunction to Abandon a Bogus Guru 1.49 guror apy avaliptasya karyakaryam ajanatah utpatha-pratipannasya parityago vidhiyate A guru addicted to sensual pleasure and polluted by vice, who is ignorant and has no power to discriminate between right and wrong, or who is not on the path of suddha-bhakti must be abandoned. (Mahabharata, Udyoga-parva, 179.25) 1.50 snehad va lobhato vapi yo grhniyad diksaya tasmin gurau sa-sisye tat devata sapa apatet If a guru, disregarding the standard for giving diksa, gives the mantra to his disciple out of greed or mundane affection, he is cursed by the gods along withthat disciple. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.7) 1.51 yo vyakti nyaya rahitam anyayena srnoti yah tav ubhau narakam ghoram vrajatah kalam aksayam One who assumes the dress and position of an acarya, who speaks against them conclusions of Srimad Bhagavatam and other scriptures, or performs kirtana opposed to the proper glorification of Sri Krsna, certainly goes to hell for countless lifetimes along with his disciples and whoever else hears such non-devotional talks and kirtanas. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.101) 1.52 vaisnava-vidvesi cet parityajya eva. "guror api avaliptasye" ti smaranat, vaisnava-bhava-rahityena avaisnavataya avaisnavopadisteneti vacana-visaya tvacca. Yathokta-laksanasya sri-guror-avidyamanatayastu tasyaiva maha-bhagavatasyaikasya nitya-sevanam paramam sreyah. A guru who is envious of pure devotees, who blasphemes them, or behaves maliciously towards them should certainly be abandoned, remembering the verse "guror api avaliptasya" (See 1.49). Such an envious guru lacks the mood and character of a Vaisnava. The sastras enjoin that one should not accept initiation from a non-devotee (avaisnavopadistena... See 1.54). Knowing these injunctions of the scriptures, a sincere devotee abandons a false guru who is envious of devotees. After leaving one who lacks the true qualities of a guru, if a devotee is without a spiritual guide, his only hope is to seek out a mahabhagavata vaisnava and serve him. By constantly rendering service to such a pure devotee, one will certainly attain the highest goal of life. (Bhakti-sandarbha, Annucheda 238) A Materialistic, Professional, Family or Vyavaharika-guru Must be Given up 1.53 paramartha-gurvasrayo vyavaharika-gurvadi parityagenapi kartavyah One should not accept a spiritual master based on hereditary, social or ecclesiastical convention. Such a professional guru should be rejected. One must accept a qualified spiritual master, who can help one advance towards the ultimate goal of life, krsna-prema. (Bhakti-sandarbha, annucheda 210) Who Rejects a False Guru Must Accept a Real Guru 1.54 avaisnavopadistena mantrena nirayam vrajet punas ca vidhina samyag grahayed vaisnavad guroh One who gets his mantra from a guru who is a non-devotee or who is addictedto sensual pleasure is doomed to a life in hell. Such a person must immediately approach a genuine Vaisnava guru and again accept the mantra from him. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.366) Seems to me that you have never met a sad guru, pure devotee of Lord Krsna, or you would have a different perspective. More on this tattva is found here ,in the Gaudiya Kantahara: http://bvml.org/SGK/01.html A Genuine Guru Knows the Truth About Krsna, is Surrendered to Him, and is Well- Versed in the Vedic Literature 1.14 tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreya uttamam sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany upasamasrayam One who is searching for the Ultimate Truth must surrender to a guru who knows the inner meaning of the Vedas, is fixed in the Absolute Truth and is expert in the sastra. (Bhag. 11.3.21) 1.15 krpa-sindhuh su-sampurnah sarva-sattvopakarakah nisprhah sarvatah siddhah sarva-vidya-visaradah sarva-samsaya-samchetta 'nalaso gurur ahrtah One who is an ocean of mercy, who is fulfilled in all respects, who has all good qualities, who works for the benefit of all souls, who is free from lust, who is perfect in all respects, who is well-versed in the scriptures, who knows the science of Krsna, who can remove all the doubts of his disciples, and who is always alert in the service of Krsna is known as a genuine guru. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.45,46 quoted from Visnu-smrti Vacan Who is an Acarya? 1.22 upaniya tu yah sisyam veda-madhyapayed dvijah sankalpam sa-rahasyam ca tam acaryam pracaksate An acarya is not one who only confers the sacred thread. He trains his disciples in sacrifice and teaches them the confidential meaning of the Vedas. Such a spiritual master is an acarya, according to saintly authorities. (Manu-samhita 2.140) 1.23 acinoti yah sastrartham acare sthapayaty api svayam acarate yasmad acaryas tena kirttitah An acarya is one who fully understands the conclusions of the revealed scriptures and whose behavior reflects his deep realization. He is a living example for he teaches the meaning of the scriptures both by word and deed. (Vayu Purana) Example Is Better Than Precept 1.24 yad yad acarati sresthas tat tad evetaro janah sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate Whatever a great man does, common men follow. Whatever standards he sets By exemplary acts, all the world pursues. (Bhagavad-gita 3.21) 1.25 apane acare keha, na kare pracara pracara karena keha, na karena acara 'acara' 'pracara' namera karaha 'dui' karya tumi sarva-guru, tumi jagatera arya Some practice but do not preach, others preach but do not practice, but one who is perfect in both preaching and practice is the guru of the entire universe. You are a real jagad-guru, for you practice what you preach. (Cc. Antya 4.102,103) 1.26 apane karimu bhakta-bhava angikare apani acari' bhakti sikhamu sabare I shall accept the role of a devotee, and I shall teach bhakti to everyone by practicing it Myself. (Cc. Adi 3.20) 1.27 apani na kaile dharma sikhana na yaya If I do not do this Myself, then the principles of religion will not be taught. (Cc. Adi 3.21) That clarifies a lot. Thanks for sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 You don't have to surrender to anyone but God as an absolute power Your statement is false, though it is a common misunderstanding among those who fear initiation. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati taught very clearly that the true Vaishnava devotee does not surrender directly to Krishna, but rather to the servant of the servant of Krishna. A "devotee" who says he cannot find any Vaishnava greater than himself to whom he should surrender is a very low devotee. This is why the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta even exclude Mirabai from the pantheon of advanced devotees; they recognize that her "surrender directly to Krishna" was the hallmark of a very junior devotee if not an outright pretender. Be careful in selecting those to whom you will surrender, but if you have not surrendered to real, flesh-and-blood Vaishnavas whom you consider your superiors, there's a very good chance that you have made little or no advancement in your devotion. Sridhar Maharaja gave the example of the mountain climber approaching Mount Everest. From a distance, the climber sees the peak of Everest, and considers that his goal. But as he grows nearer his goal, his view of the peak gives way to a view of the smaller mountains to which he is closer. This teaching can be abused by evil men who seek power over others. One must be careful in applying it. However, it is the true teaching of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Fairness is beside the point. It's based on observable facts excruciating and convicting as they are. I conceded in my previous posts that there is also corruption in Christianity to head off what I knew would become a finger pointing 'you too' competition. That childish fault-finding is so common in ISKCON. So predictable. I'm not evangelical. No pastor has me on a leash , short or otherwise. I know many godbrothers and godsisters who are the same. I don't call anyone master other than the Lord Himself. I do that without fear because Christ is Love incarnate. The ISKCON Uriah Heeps always bowing and namaste-ing each other record every offense imagined or otherwise, hoping others will suffer consequences, waiting for them to fall. Arrogant and unloving. You don't have to surrender to anyone but God as an absolute power sure there has been abuse of this in ISKCON but - you're not being fair in that every faith has this aspect - including the christian faith - in fact - many evangelical 'leaders' keep their 'flock' on a very short leash. You're generalizing and you're being unfair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Fairness is beside the point. It's based on observable facts excruciating and convicting as they are.I conceded in my previous posts that there is also corruption in Christianity to head off what I knew would become a finger pointing 'you too' competition. That childish fault-finding is so common in ISKCON. So predictable. I'm not evangelical. No pastor has me on a leash , short or otherwise. I know many godbrothers and godsisters who are the same. I don't call anyone master other than the Lord Himself. I do that without fear because Christ is Love incarnate. The ISKCON Uriah Heeps always bowing and namaste-ing each other record every offense imagined or otherwise, hoping others will suffer consequences, waiting for them to fall. Arrogant and unloving. As far as I know Prabhupada had no problem with people accepting Christ as a spiritual master, he wasn't trying to convert Christians into Hindus just asking the Christians to follow their own principles so I don't think you can go wrong at all following Jesus. Jesus is great there is no doubt about it and I love both him and Prabhupada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayodhya Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Ummm... Did someone forget that hundreds of priests raped altar boys? Christian theology may, on a more metaphorical level, come close to Eastern theology, but in, in no way surpasses it. Krishna is Love incarnate, as are we all, if we choose to be. Follow whatever faith you wish, but I think it is important to keep the spirituality alive. Don't completely wipe out any fragments of Eastern theology that may have existed simply because of some silly organization. Hindu thought goes far beyond Krishna Consciousness, man. If you need a regular Hindu to talk to, I'm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Fairness is beside the point. It's based on observable facts excruciating and convicting as they are.I conceded in my previous posts that there is also corruption in Christianity to head off what I knew would become a finger pointing 'you too' competition. That childish fault-finding is so common in ISKCON. So predictable. I'm not evangelical. No pastor has me on a leash , short or otherwise. I know many godbrothers and godsisters who are the same. I don't call anyone master other than the Lord Himself. I do that without fear because Christ is Love incarnate. The ISKCON Uriah Heeps always bowing and namaste-ing each other record every offense imagined or otherwise, hoping others will suffer consequences, waiting for them to fall. Arrogant and unloving. Personally I am really glad to see someone speak freely on these matters and not be banned or censored in any way. Most of the time people like you are banned or censored on these boards which gets really disgusting to me. I think that is great that you are speaking your mind and even though I have no personal experience with Iskcon after having read and heard the details I can't blame you one bit for feeling the way you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 I'm neither evangelical or Catholic. How many times am I going to have to make the point among the 'you too' finger pointing kiddies that Christianity has corruption. At least it doesn't outright demand complete subservience of one human by another. And the rites and rituals are nowhere near as complicated and fraught with possiblity of offenses. Catholic hegemony was the most corrupt and false Christianity. It was eventually overthrown. If one takes the Gospels, there is not this profusion of little rules and regulations and submissions and self-torturing rituals... Ummm...Did someone forget that hundreds of priests raped altar boys? Christian theology may, on a more metaphorical level, come close to Eastern theology, but in, in no way surpasses it. Krishna is Love incarnate, as are we all, if we choose to be. Follow whatever faith you wish, but I think it is important to keep the spirituality alive. Don't completely wipe out any fragments of Eastern theology that may have existed simply because of some silly organization. Hindu thought goes far beyond Krishna Consciousness, man. If you need a regular Hindu to talk to, I'm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Misunderstanding? The fear is well founded. There is no misunderstanding. Having one human being in total control of another is diabolical. Anyone who fears it has there head screwed on right. 'And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven' (see Matthew 23:8-10)." Your statement is false, though it is a common misunderstanding among those who fear initiation.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 I like reading about how Jada Bharata played like he was a deaf, dumb, madman so his father would quit trying to teach him all the rules and regulations of the Vedas because he was too busy with devotional service to do all those rules and regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Misunderstanding? The fear is well founded. There is no misunderstanding. Having one human being in total control of another is diabolical. Anyone who fears it has there head screwed on right. 'And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven' (see Matthew 23:8-10)." I like the take on initiation that initiation is when there is a transfer of spiritual knowledge from the master to the disciple. That version doesn't scare me but I gotta admit that the version where you have to submit to the control of someone else is frightening to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 What a contradiction in terms. The requirement of absolute 'surrender' is a requirement of complete control of the guru over the said disciple. There is an non-negotiable command for diksa initiation which establishes this absolute control. That's what all the controversy and corruption is about.I will never surrender to another human being. That is diabolical and a very bizarre condition for linking up to a loving God. I see Puru das also answered this. I must agree with him and others that the Guru is nothing but mercy and grace, as in His (Krsna's)Divine Grace. The problem arises when people think the Guru is grace himself apart from Krsna. It is them same fallacy that charleton gurus impress upon their followers by allowing them to consider him in this way. Just see what violence these charletons are commiting to the pysches of those that come in contact with them. Hell must be a long experience for such pretender gurus. They are wise if they drop their charade and repent their evil ways. Guru means someone who has NO desire to control others but only the desire to serve Krsna. This is what distinguishs someone as guru as opposed to the rest of us. That quality is what makes surrendering to Guru the same as surrendering to Krsna. If he only has a desire to serve Krsna then he can guide others in that way. And if he accepts disciples that means he commits to pleasing Krsna by bringing those specific lost souls back to Krsna. It is a great responsibility to be Guru to someone. It is like become a father. The child may continue to do one wrong thing after another against the guru's wishes and the guru then has the responsibility for correcting him. From the outside it may look authortarian, like he wants to control others but it is not so. He just wants his disciples to love Krsna and be happy. Unless one actually is enlightened by the Lord as to this quality being present in some teacher no one should surrender to him as his servant. More advanced devotees can give instructions and should be honored respected and listened to when they do so but that doesn't mean one should surrender their heart to them as eternal servants. This can only result in disillusionment and suffering which give rise to anger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 I like the take on initiation that initiation is when there is a transfer of spiritual knowledge from the master to the disciple. That version doesn't scare me but I gotta admit that the version where you have to submit to the control of someone else is frightening to say the least. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Guru means someone who has NO desire to control others but only the desire to serve Krsna. This is what distinguishs someone as guru as opposed to the rest of us. That quality is what makes surrendering to Guru the same as surrendering to Krsna. If he only has a desire to serve Krsna then he can guide others in that way. And if he accepts disciples that means he commits to pleasing Krsna by bringing those specific lost souls back to Krsna. Unless one actually is enlightened by the Lord as to this quality being present in some teacher no one should surrender to him as his servant. Well my Guru is Jesus. He doesn't ask for prostration. Doesn't watch for ritual offenses. Forbids me to 'surrender' to any human as 'teacher/father' (guru). If the guru is merely supposed to lead, to enlighten, what's up with the surrender. Why should I jump when he barks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guruvani Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Well my Guru is Jesus. He doesn't ask for prostration. Doesn't watch for ritual offenses. Forbids me to 'surrender' to any human as 'teacher/father' (guru). If the guru is merely supposed to lead, to enlighten, what's up with the surrender. Why should I jump when he barks? the only "evidence" that Jesus ever existed is in the gospels of Jewish authors. There is nothing in any objective historical record that substantiates that Jesus ever really existed. The Romans who "crucified him" have no history or record of that and the Romans were very literate and good keepers of historical records. Anyway, Jesus was supposed to be a messiah, not a guru. To say that Jesus is guru is very mixed-up blend of conceptions. The messiah was an anticipated saviour of the Jewish peoples. Jesus himself was supposed to have said "I have come only for the tribes of Israel." So, unless you are from one of the tribes of Israel, it is unlikely that Jesus can do anything for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Jesus is my Teacher my Master in the sense that guru is used. In fact His salvific power is very similar to that of the diksa taking the soul back to God, taking on the karma of the disciple. As far as his historicity is concerned your opinion differs with scholarship. Josephus, in the book Jewish Antiquities" wrote: "At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. . . .And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1). Tacitus, in writing about accusations that Nero burned the city of Rome and blamed it on Christians, said the following: ". . .Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. . . .At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. . . ." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44). There are many documents oral traditions etc...many of which were compiled as the canonic New Testament that speaks of Jesus. There's as much proof of his existence as the existence of any other well known Jew of the period such as Saul of Tarsus of wrote copiously on the subject. He was the Messiah of the Jews and of all of humanity. He was the Savior of all the world. I know because he sent his apostles to preach to all the nations. In fact it was Paul's specific mission to evangalize the Gentiles (non-Jews). the only "evidence" that Jesus ever existed is in the gospels of Jewish authors.There is nothing in any objective historical record that substantiates that Jesus ever really existed. The Romans who "crucified him" have no history or record of that and the Romans were very literate and good keepers of historical records. Anyway, Jesus was supposed to be a messiah, not a guru. To say that Jesus is guru is very mixed-up blend of conceptions. The messiah was an anticipated saviour of the Jewish peoples. Jesus himself was supposed to have said "I have come only for the tribes of Israel." So, unless you are from one of the tribes of Israel, it is unlikely that Jesus can do anything for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Well my Guru is Jesus. That's fine. He is my guru also, (that is to the degree that I actually follow his teachings). He doesn't ask for prostration. Yes he is not interested our prostations, that is what makes him worthy to prostrate before. It is just a sign of respect. In Christrian churches it is common for people to lift their hands and heads upward and cry out "I praise your Holy Name Jesus." That is also respectful and proper. Doesn't watch for ritual offenses. Forbids me to 'surrender' to any human as 'teacher/father' (guru). True there are no such rituals in Christianity. A guru has no real interest in your ritual purity. Jesus has only one interest and that is helping us love Krsna (God). Different disciplines are attractive to different people and in many rituals are important training devices for the disciples mind. You say Jesus forbids you.... isn't being forbidden to do something your objection to the idea of guru? Do you thinks Jesus wants to control you for some egocentric reason? If the guru is merely supposed to lead, to enlighten, what's up with the surrender. Why should I jump when he barks? That's fine. He is my Guru also, (that is to the degree that I actual follow his teachings). But shouln't a follow of Jesus have the attitude that, "Your very wish is my command Lord Jesus?" Anyway you are way too angry to reason with right now. You are in a mood to fight it seems. Chant Lord Jesus Christ and whatever name for the Father that you choose and you will come unto perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Pure garbage. the only "evidence" that Jesus ever existed is in the gospels of Jewish authors.There is nothing in any objective historical record that substantiates that Jesus ever really existed. The Romans who "crucified him" have no history or record of that and the Romans were very literate and good keepers of historical records. Anyway, Jesus was supposed to be a messiah, not a guru. To say that Jesus is guru is very mixed-up blend of conceptions. The messiah was an anticipated saviour of the Jewish peoples. Jesus himself was supposed to have said "I have come only for the tribes of Israel." So, unless you are from one of the tribes of Israel, it is unlikely that Jesus can do anything for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 I was responding to the accusation that Jesus could not be guru. Jesus is guru in role of teacher and savior. But he is not just a human being, he is also divine, in a way that is not in accord with the jiva-tattva philosophy of the vaisnavas. He does ask me to follow his commandments because He is one with the Father God. This is where it differs from the diksa concept. So many humans are being worshipped as god in the same way that Jesus is. But these self-appointed (or committee-appointed) 'gurus' are NOT GOD. It offends me to see people worship them and prostrate themselves to them. It is idolatry. That's fine. He is my guru also, (that is to the degree that I actually follow his teachings). Yes he is not interested our prostations, that is what makes him worthy to prostrate before. It is just a sign of respect. In Christrian churches it is common for people to lift their hands and heads upward and cry out "I praise your Holy Name Jesus." That is also respectful and proper. True there are no such rituals in Christianity. A guru has no real interest in your ritual purity. Jesus has only one interest and that is helping us love Krsna (God). Different disciplines are attractive to different people and in many rituals are important training devices for the disciples mind. You say Jesus forbids you.... isn't being forbidden to do something your objection to the idea of guru? Do you thinks Jesus wants to control you for some egocentric reason? That's fine. He is my Guru also, (that is to the degree that I actual follow his teachings). But shouln't a follow of Jesus have the attitude that, "Your very wish is my command Lord Jesus?" Anyway you are way too angry to reason with right now. You are in a mood to fight it seems. Chant Lord Jesus Christ and whatever name for the Father that you choose and you will come unto perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayodhya Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Jesus is guru in role of teacher and savior. So, Jesus wants to save me too, a pagan, and idolater, who he specifically condemns to Hell? No, he doesn't want to, because Jesus doesn't love me. So many humans are being worshipped as god in the same way that Jesus is. But these self-appointed (or committee-appointed) 'gurus' are NOT GOD. Who says these gurus are not God? You? And what makes Jesus different than Self-Realized souls? The fact that it says so in the Bible? That doesn't meaning anything. It offends me to see people worship them and prostrate themselves to them. It is idolatry. And why is idolatry bad? I can't prostrate to a statue of Krishna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrahma Posted December 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 So, Jesus wants to save me too, a pagan, and idolater, who he specifically condemns to Hell? No, he doesn't want to, because Jesus doesn't love me. Where does Jesus say He doesn't love you? He said he came to save the world not to condemn it. He is incapable of anything but Love. He exhorts us even to love our enemies. Who says these gurus are not God? You? And what makes Jesus different than Self-Realized souls? The fact that it says so in the Bible? That doesn't meaning anything. all gurus are not krsna-tattva but jiva-tattva. I don't subsribe to the idea that Godlike = God. There are many saints who are godlike but they do not equal God and will be the first to object to such an identification. It violates the First Commandment - in the Judao-Christian tradition. "I am the Lord thy God. You will have no other gods before me". To worship something/somebody is to consider that something/somebody a god. It is idolatry. If the 'as good as God' is to be accepted then I want proof. Let the guru raise somebody from the dead. Then I will believe it. Otherwise it is vain boasting. And why is idolatry bad? I can't prostrate to a statue of Krishna? You can do whatever your conscience dictates. I will not do it. The first commandment forbids idolatry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayodhya Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Jesus does not love me, because I am a pagan. I do not believe in the God of the Old Testament. I do not believe that Jesus is my savior. I do not believe Jesus to be the best person on the planet Earth (Gandhi definitely seems better) I do not believe that Jesus died for my sins. I bow to idols. I've broken the First Commandment a thousand times, thus as God, he would feel the need to punish me as Moses did when they created a statue of a cow (which by the way, I consider sacred). Your hatred for ISKON blinds you cbrahma. Simply because it states in the Bible that Jesus rose the dead does not mean he actually did it or actually even lived. You are discrediting an entire religion because of one book - and that is the mark of a fundamentalist (which is a bad thing, by the way). Can it also be said that simply because Frodo took the ring to Mt.Doom that it is also true? You're acting on blind faith, not reason. This gets you nowhere, however comforting it may be to derail another's religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.