Worshipping a Beautiful Idea

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Let me be honest with my self. Just what am I really doing in my "spiritual life"? Just how much faith do I have? Really, am I not worshipping a Beautiful Idea? Isn't that enough?

 

There are those who like to point out that there is no legal/archeological evidence to prove the existence of Jesus Christ. By that same reasoning, one could (as one has on that other thread) question the existence of Sri Krishna and even Sriman Mahaprabhu. Do we have Social Security numbers and driver's licenses for any of them (yes, I know it's a silly question)?

 

So, really, lacking the faith to actually *see* (or have revealed in my heart) the Lord--whether as Krishna or Christ--I am enamored of these concepts of which I've been made aware. They inspire me to endure the tempests of day-to-day life and give me solace in moments of fear and doubt. Even if there is no (material) "substance" to these ideas, can we not, from the utilitarian standpoint, say that it is a "good thing"?

 

As Guruvani (who is usually the first to pull the "Jesus never existed" card out of his deck) points out so graciously, the Christians, in honoring this Beautiful Idea of a man who died for their sins, have done so much to better humanity.

 

How many barbarian hordes (like the Romans) have progressed from "kill your entire race for an eye" to the Old Testament improvement of "eye for an eye" to the New Testament revelation "turn the other cheek"?

 

How many cities have been built in the name of this Beautiful Idea? I, for one, live in what was once Mission Santa Cruz, founded by Catholics.

 

How many masterpieces of art have been inspired by the sacrifice of this Beautiful Idea?

 

So, until my being fills with Krishna Prem and tears fall from my eyes when I chant His Name, and He reveals His sweet three-fold bending form in my heart (which is much too poluted at the moment), what can I do but worship the Beautiful Idea?

 

Isn't that enough?

[theist 1]

 

Isn't that enough?

 

It's a solid start. Hold onto it, worship that Idea, try to live up to it in your personal life and trust in the Lord in your heart to reveal the truth of the matter.

 

Archelogical evidence is almost always open to dispute and never free from doubt. Final confirmation is up to the Lord alone.

[theist 1]

TRANSLATION Bg 10.11

To show them special mercy, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.

 

PURPORT

When Lord Caitanya was in Benares promulgating the chanting of Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, thousands of people were following Him. Prakasananda Sarasvati, a very influential and learned scholar in Benares at that time, derided Lord Caitanya for being a sentimentalist. Sometimes Mayavadi philosophers criticize the devotees because they think that most of the devotees are in the darkness of ignorance and are philosophically naive sentimentalists. Actually that is not the fact. There are very, very learned scholars who have put forward the philosophy of devotion. But even if a devotee does not take advantage of their literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Krishna Himself within his heart. So the sincere devotee engaged in Krishna consciousness cannot be without knowledge. The only qualification is that one carry out devotional service in full Krishna consciousness.

[theist 1]

Another point is that the Beautiful Idea(l) that is left by the empowered Avatar is a subtle form of His vani. If we draw inspiration from the Beautiful Idea, that itself is a form of initiation, a beginning.

 

And if we lose that inspiration at some point then we have lost the connection irregardless of how strongly we may profess our beliefs.

[Guruvani 0]

As obvious from previous topics and posts on this forum, I am not crazy about mixing and mingling the Christian concept with the Hare Krishna concept.

 

I appreciate the faith of the Christians in One supreme personal God, but at the same time I see very little practical grounds for any mixing and mingling of Jesus into the Gaudiya beliefs or vice versa.

 

I like to keep things in proper place and perspective.

 

I don't like to see Jesus imposed on the Vaishnavas with some ideal that "if you love Krishna you must love Jesus".

 

Well, we can love Jesus without making the figure of Jesus a part of the Gaudiya religious doctrine.

 

Seperate but equal is the way I like to relate with Christians.

 

I don't agree that devotees have to "love Jesus" if they profess to love Krishna.

 

They should love Jesus in the same way they love any other fellow soul, but not as the Godhead.

 

So, I appreciate faith in God whether is it Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

 

That doesn't mean I like to mix and mingle other religious figures into the Gaudiya theology.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

And if we lose that inspiration at some point then we have lost the connection irregardless of how strongly we may profess our beliefs.

So, what you're saying is: even if we are properly following all of the formal practices of our faith, but we have lost sight of the ideal behind the formal practices, then our position is not so good (solid)?

 

Makes sense.

 

The quote from the purport which you underlined brings great comfort.

 

But even if a devotee does not take advantage of their literatures or of his spiritual master, if he is sincere in his devotional service he is helped by Krishna Himself within his heart.

Having had little direct association of Gurudev, and seeing how eagerly my Godsiblings save money for a trip to India to sit at his feet, I have felt like something must be wrong with me (which, no doubt there *is*, but...).

 

Knowing that, if I can find some practical service which I may perform with sincerity--or even that I can perform my worldly duties in a mood of service and surrender to the Lord--that I will be helped by the Lord from within is such a soothing tonic!!

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Thanks for that clarification, Prabhu.

 

I admit, starting this thread has been on my mind for some days now. Seeing your mood of magnanimity in contrast with Bhakta Don's on the other thread was what inspired me to do so today.

 

So, it's clear that you have all love and respect for Jesus Christ (whether or not he existed as an historical figure), and that what irks you (and who would not be irked) is when someone tries to force-feed you their conception.

 

I agree with our friend (was it krsna?) that you ought to run for president. Of course, since you are not duplicitous and diplomatic, you would likely be assassinated shortly after being elected, which I would not wish for you.

 

 

As obvious from previous topics and posts on this forum, I am not crazy about mixing and mingling the Christian concept with the Hare Krishna concept.

 

I appreciate the faith of the Christians in One supreme personal God, but at the same time I see very little practical grounds for any mixing and mingling of Jesus into the Gaudiya beliefs or vice versa.

 

I like to keep things in proper place and perspective.

 

I don't like to see Jesus imposed on the Vaishnavas with some ideal that "if you love Krishna you must love Jesus".

 

Well, we can love Jesus without making the figure of Jesus a part of the Gaudiya religious doctrine.

 

Seperate but equal is the way I like to relate with Christians.

 

I don't agree that devotees have to "love Jesus" if they profess to love Krishna.

 

They should love Jesus in the same way they love any other fellow soul, but not as the Godhead.

 

So, I appreciate faith in God whether is it Christian, Muslim or Hindu.

 

That doesn't mean I like to mix and mingle other religious figures into the Gaudiya theology.

[theist 1]

 

I don't like to see Jesus imposed on the Vaishnavas with some ideal that "if you love Krishna you must love Jesus".

This is a direct quote from Srila Prabhupada.

 

How someone can love Krsna and not love His avatars is beyond me.

 

Another point is that nothing in Krsna consciousness is an imposition. There is no need to mix Christianity with and the standard sadhana of GV. But then I do not see Lord Jesus Christ as Christianity any more than I consider present Iskcon as the body of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Anybody can remain within a Christian context and add Krsna. That is also Krsna consciousness. It is important to remember that Krsna consciousness does not just refer to madhurya rasa. If it did one could ask why devotees even bother with Bhagavad gita and the first nine cantos of SB.

 

Lord Buddha is also a shaktya-vesa avatar of Krsna but Buddhism is not compatable with vaisnavism. Even within Indian vaisnava's there are slightly different conceptions (which I do not really understand). Sri Vaisnavism is also not totally compatable with GV for example. But up to a point there is agreement.

 

Christianity is beginning bhakti. Actually karma/bhakti yoga with scant emphasis on Jnana.

 

Prayer is prayer as long as it is directed to the Supreme Lord. The fact that there are 4 different motivations for such prayer still holds true for Christians as it does for Hare Krsna's. Thinking otherwise is rank sectarianism.

 

Srila Prabhupada has clearly stated Jesus Christ is a shaktya-vesa incarnation of Krsna. One can accept his statement or reject it. But there is no need to try to follow all the instructions of every avatar. They all reach their apex in Krsna so if one REALLY is Krsna conscious that will include His avatars as well. And if one REALLY loves Krsna he will love His avatars as well.

[Guruvani 0]

 

This is a direct quote from Srila Prabhupada.

 

How someone can love Krsna and not love His avatars is beyond me.

 

Well, if you want to get technical, there was never a Jewish saint named Jesus that was crucified by the Romans.

 

The whole Jesus story is riddled with human tampering.

 

How can I love a person who never existed?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

True, theist. Also true is the Vaishnava conception of rasabhasa--improper mixing of devotional moods.

 

So, the aspirant may love both, while acknowledging that each Divinity has Their own sphere of influence. Of course, those spheres of influence may have points of intersection while remaining distinct.

 

Didn't Srila Prabhupada also say that, if a Christian devoutly follows the teachings of Christ, they may attain "Jesus-loka"? Didn't he say that they might, through their sincerity, *eventually* come to the conception of Goloka? So, it's not that, by following the path of Christ, one comes directly to Goloka.

 

Still, as you say, how can we love one and not the other?

 

 

This is a direct quote from Srila Prabhupada.

 

How someone can love Krsna and not love His avatars is beyond me.

[theist 1]

 

Well, if you want to get technical, there was never a Jewish saint named Jesus that was crucified by the Romans.

 

The whole Jesus story is riddled with human tampering.

 

How can I love a person who never existed?

 

So you say one thing and Srila Prabhupada says the opposite. So why should anyone accept your statement over him?

[Guruvani 0]

Sivananda Sena loved a dog that followed him to see Mahaprabhu.

 

So, sure we love Jesus, we love dogs, we love prostitutes (Haridas blessed the prostitute), we love Jagai and Madhai (Nityananda saved them), we love cats (Srila Prabhupada petted the kitty at New Vrindavan), so why wouldn't we love Jesus?

 

That is my point.

 

We love Jesus just like we should love any common soul, but that is not a religious sentiment that becomes part of our spiritual faith.

 

There was no Avatar named Jesus.

There was not even a Jewish mystic named Jesus.

 

The whole story about Jesus is a fabrication.

 

How can anybody love such a mythical person as Jesus?

 

There was supposed to be some Jewish mystic name Yeshua that some fable has been spun into the story of Jesus, but I don't buy into the Pauline cult and I don't LOVE any fiction character named Jesus.

[Guest guest]

The absolute is indivisible. Idea and Reality are non-different. If you just think about Krsna that thought is Krsna. If you see a stylized picture of Krsna - that is Krsna.

<i>

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru, mam evaisyasi asamsayah [bg. 18.65]. Four things. “Just always think of Me,” man-mana. Mad-bhaktah: “Just become My devotee.” Mad-yaji: “You worship Me. And offer your obeisances unto Me. If you do simply these four things, then you are coming back to Me without any doubt.” These four things.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

</I>

[theist 1]

 

True, theist. Also true is the Vaishnava conception of rasabhasa--improper mixing of devotional moods.

 

So, the aspirant may love both, while acknowledging that each Divinity has Their own sphere of influence. Of course, those spheres of influence may have points of intersection while remaining distinct.

 

Didn't Srila Prabhupada also say that, if a Christian devoutly follows the teachings of Christ, they may attain "Jesus-loka"? Didn't he say that they might, through their sincerity, *eventually* come to the conception of Goloka? So, it's not that, by following the path of Christ, one comes directly to Goloka.

 

Still, as you say, how can we love one and not the other?

 

Yes rasabhasa is what I was trying to say. The whole Spiritual Sky is filled with diversity in unity. What is not allowed there is sectarian religious conceptions.

 

Yes Srila Prabhupada said Jesus Christ has his own planet. He used the term "Christ-loka."

 

Just like in the Gita Krsna explains that one attains the destination of his worshipable object be it demi-gods or ghosts. Same priniciple. Worship Christ and you go to Christ for further training for as He Himself said, "There are many other things I have to tell but you cannot bear them now.."

 

It is similar to Prabhupada canvassing in the west inviting others to the temple to hear his lectures and receive further training. Just that Christ temple is off planet.

[theist 1]

 

Sivananda Sena loved a dog that followed him to see Mahaprabhu.

 

So, sure we love Jesus, we love dogs, we love prostitutes (Haridas blessed the prostitute), we love Jagai and Madhai (Nityananda saved them), we love cats (Srila Prabhupada petted the kitty at New Vrindavan), so why wouldn't we love Jesus?

 

That is my point.

 

We love Jesus just like we should love any common soul, but that is not a religious sentiment that becomes part of our spiritual faith.

 

There was no Avatar named Jesus.

There was not even a Jewish mystic named Jesus.

 

The whole story about Jesus is a fabrication.

 

How can anybody love such a mythical person as Jesus?

 

There was supposed to be some Jewish mystic name Yeshua that some fable has been spun into the story of Jesus, but I don't buy into the Pauline cult and I don't LOVE any fiction character named Jesus.

Yeah you keep repeating the same thing in an authoritarian voice but my question was who accepts you as an authority beyond yourself?

 

You are directly contradicting Srila Prabhupada who many people do accept as an authority. Now please explain why you should be accepted and why he should be rejected?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

How can anybody love such a mythical person as Jesus?

 

You should see how much my daughter loves "Beauty and the Beast".

 

My sister used to watch "The Princess Bride" every day, sometimes more than once.

 

They seemed quite enamored of these mythical persons.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

OK!!! Light-bulbs are being illuminated inside my mind!

 

 

The absolute is indivisible. Idea and Reality are non-different. If you just think about Krsna that thought is Krsna. If you see a stylized picture of Krsna - that is Krsna.

 

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru, mam evaisyasi asamsayah [bg. 18.65]. Four things. “Just always think of Me,” man-mana. Mad-bhaktah: “Just become My devotee.” Mad-yaji: “You worship Me. And offer your obeisances unto Me. If you do simply these four things, then you are coming back to Me without any doubt.” These four things.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

[Guruvani 0]

 

Yeah you keep repeating the same thing in an authoritarian voice but my question was who accepts you as an authority beyond yourself?

 

You are directly contradicting Srila Prabhupada who many people do accept as an authority. Now please explain why you should be accepted and why he should be rejected?

Srila Prabhupada referred to Jesus figuratively.

 

Literally, there never was any AVATAR named Jesus, nor a Jewish mystic named Jesus.

 

Srila Prabhupada can't make a myth a reality.

 

He was referring to the concept of "love God with all your heart and soul" that has been attributed to the mythological character of Jesus.

 

We love the idealogy behind the Jesus myth.

We don't love Jesus because Jesus never existed as Jesus.

 

It's a fairytale.

[Guruvani 0]

 

You should see how much my daughter loves "Beauty and the Beast".

 

My sister used to watch "The Princess Bride" every day, sometimes more than once.

 

They seemed quite enamored of these mythical persons.

 

Well, I love Indiana Jones, but sadly Indiana Jones is not a real person.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada referred to Jesus figuratively.

 

....

 

We don't love Jesus because Jesus never existed as Jesus.

 

It's a fairytale.

 

Similarly, there is no evidence for Krishna and Rama. Have you dismissed them as fabrications too? If not, please explain how they can be real without evidence, but Jesus cannot.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Well, I love Indiana Jones, but sadly Indiana Jones is not a real person.

 

So, the point is made, we *can* love "mythical" persons.

 

Once again, the question of what "real" is comes to mind.

 

Is a "real" person a legal person (with papers, etc.)? If so, cannot legal persons be fabricated (identity theft happens all the time, why not identity creation)?

 

Is a "real" person a person we can see with our own eyes? If so, many people have claimed to have "seen" Jesus.

 

How is Sri Krishna any more real than Jesus (from the empirical standpoint)?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Similarly, there is no evidence for Krishna and Rama. Have you dismissed them as fabrications too? If not, please explain how they can be real without evidence, but Jesus cannot.

it's a matter of faith.

I have faith in the Vaishnava acharyas.

 

I don't trust King James, the Apostle Paul or Jimmy Swaggart.

 

At least they haven't changed Krishna's name.

 

There was never a Jewish saint named Jesus.

 

It's a well known fact.

 

I don't have any faith in a Jesus story that has been altered, edited and adjusted for 2000 years by long line of very questionable characters.

 

Sorry, I don't believe that some Jewish mystic named Jesus is the saviour of all mankind.

I hope you will excuse me.

 

But, I happen to have some solid proof that Krishna is for real.

It's not a fairtytale to me.

 

I do appreciate the modern Christians belief in God, but I think it is a shame that they have to give all the credit for their belief in God to a mythological character named Jesus.

[Guruvani 0]

 

So, the point is made, we *can* love "mythical" persons.

 

Once again, the question of what "real" is comes to mind.

 

Is a "real" person a legal person (with papers, etc.)? If so, cannot legal persons be fabricated (identity theft happens all the time, why not identity creation)?

 

Is a "real" person a person we can see with our own eyes? If so, many people have claimed to have "seen" Jesus.

 

How is Sri Krishna any more real than Jesus (from the empirical standpoint)?

 

We love Jesus because the story of Jesus promotes monotheism and prayer to God.

Other than that, we don't have to accept that the whole story of some Jewish mystic named Jesus is the saviour of all mankind is historically a fact.

 

We love "Jesus" because in the fable about Jesus we learn that God is a person and we should love God and "though shalt not kill" etc.

 

We love the religious conception of Jesus, but we don't accept him as an actual historical personality.

[Guruvani 0]

The reason we can't love Jesus is because Jesus said he was "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me."

Well, excuse me but Lord Vishnu is the father of the Universe and Jesus is NOT, let me repeat NOT the only way to Lord Vishnu.

If you "love Jesus" then you shouldn't be reading Bhagavad-gita because JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

What counts as evidence? Especially evidence of existence? Descartes doubted everything , successfully threw into question the existence of all observable nature by postulating an 'evil genie'. (Like in the Matrix movie)

What he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting - his consciousness - cogito ergo sum.

Conversely is the absence of evidence, proof of non-existence? That is solipsism. I don't see it, therefore it can't exist.

That kind of certainty can't logically be implied from a position of doubt.

 

All we can know for sure is that there is no historical-physical evidence for the existence of Krsna SO FAR.

But that is an empirical statement. There are other forms of knowledge besides the empirical. There is knowledge based on authority.

How do I know that the circumference of the earth is 24,859.82 miles?

I don't go about measuring it. I look it up from an authoritative source.

We accept so many material assertions on authority throughout our life.

Yet when it comes to the most important topic - the spiritual - we decide that we can capture it by our own devices like the frog in the well, speculating about the size of the ocean.