Which is more personal, Christian or Vaisnava?

[HerServant 0]

Jesus taught His disciples and hence His parampara/sampradaya to pray:

 

"Our Father (Abba i.e. Daddy) , who are in heaven .... "

 

The Vaisnava acharyas taught to pray with maha mantra:

 

"Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna .. "

 

What is a more personal way to call God:

 

Daddy or Krsna ?

[Guruvani 0]

considering how many people the Christians have slaughtered over the centuries, I would have to say that Christians are definitely more personal.

[HerServant 0]

 

considering how many people the Christians have slaughtered over the centuries, I would have to say that Christians are definitely more personal.

 

So your scholarly vaisnava response is that relationship is with reference to the physical body.

[Guruvani 0]

 

So your scholarly vaisnava response is that relationship is with reference to the physical body.

 

is religious bigotry and prejudice all about the body?

 

please enlighten me...

[HerServant 0]

 

is religious bigotry and prejudice all about the body?

 

please enlighten me...

 

You said:

 

considering how many people the Christians have slaughtered over the centuries, I would have to say that Christians are definitely more personal.

 

Are you saying your reference to "slaughter" above does not refer to the body?

 

Ohhh .. I understand now. .. you mean how Christians slaughter foolish arguments and speculations of non Christians .

[Guruvani 0]

 

you mean how Christians slaughter foolish arguments and speculations of non Christians .

 

no, I mean that if it wasn't illegal that Christians would go out and slaughter every Hairy Krishna on the Earth if they could get away with it.

 

they are prevented from doing that by the force law.

[HerServant 0]

 

no, I mean that if it wasn't illegal that Christians would go out and slaughter every Hairy Krishna on the Earth if they could get away with it.

 

they are prevented from doing that by the force law.

 

 

I am sorry!

 

In atonement, I will start a "Hairy Krishna martyrs" web site. That will be my Christian good will gesture!

 

We should also make the long list of Jesus devotees martyrs exiled from Iskcon who were as good as dead upon professing their faith in Jesus.

[HerServant 0]

 

no, I mean that if it wasn't illegal that Christians would go out and slaughter every Hairy Krishna on the Earth if they could get away with it.

 

they are prevented from doing that by the force law.

 

You mean like Iskcon's antichrist teacher's incidents against devotees :

 

USA (VNN) - VNN has received the following letter written to an ISKCON official:

 

(Letter from Swami B.V. Tripurari)

 

September 30, 1997

 

Dear Bir Krishna Maharaja,

 

Dandavat pranams. Sri Sri Guru Gauranga jayatah. Since we last spoke, I received a copy of a partial transcription of Prithu, your GBC representative here in the Northwest, speaking to Iskcon devotees in Zagreb about my self and my Eugene ashram (Sri Sri Gaura Nityananda Audarya Ashram). After name calling, lies, philosophical distortion, telling devotees to bring my disciples to him to be saved from moral and spiritual degradation, and stressing that only devotees of Iskcon can go back to Godhead, Prithu tells his audience that Iskcon would take great pleasure in cutting off the tongues and heads of my disciples and I.

 

read entire article here:

 

http://www.vnn.org/world/971003-1085/index.html

[mahak 0]

Please, guruvani, remove yourself from this discussion. To call someone like cotton mather or those who profess the manifest destiny doctrine that is nothing less than genocide "christ follower" is like calling the heroin cartel, white slavers, and hillbillies in our (ISKCON) cleckered history vaisnavas.

 

To her servant, haribol. It seems to me that the vaisnava is more personal, that the use of the father to supply us is a bit self serving. Vaisnavism goes quite a bit deeper, and while Lord Jesus did preach a bit of friendship, and demonstrated thru his mother a bit of parental relationship, basically christianity is seemingly in the awe and reverence of servitude. We serve because we fear the alternative. Yet the vaisnava is not concerned with what he gets from the deal, his service is based on love, and if the calamities continue, this is of no consequence.

 

Some christians are very advanced, like those we have spoken of before like therese avila, ambrose, jerome, et al, but the basic christianity doies not even fully accept even their own saints who demonstrate such vaisnava type advancement.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guruvani 0]

you whiners need to get a life.

 

A nice Hindu gentleman was invited to open the Senate with a prayer a few days ago and some demon Christians interrupted.

 

If they could have shot the guy and got a way with it I am sure they would have.

 

Christianity isn't a religion it is a scourge like Islam is.

 

All these inbred Abrahamic religions are a scourge on mankind and their nonsense business in the middle-east is going to end up with a nuclear conflict that is going to pollute the planet for thousands of years.

[HerServant 0]

 

 

To her servant, haribol. It seems to me that the vaisnava is more personal, that the use of the father to supply us is a bit self serving. Vaisnavism goes quite a bit deeper, and while Lord Jesus did preach a bit of friendship, and demonstrated thru his mother a bit of parental relationship, basically christianity is seemingly in the awe and reverence of servitude. We serve because we fear the alternative. Yet the vaisnava is not concerned with what he gets from the deal, his service is based on love, and if the calamities continue, this is of no consequence.

 

Some christians are very advanced, like those we have spoken of before like therese avila, ambrose, jerome, et al, but the basic christianity doies not even fully accept even their own saints who demonstrate such vaisnava type advancement.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

But it is interesting that "The Lord's Prayer" starts with describing relationship .. don't ya think? "Our" not "My". "Our" not only being the human family, but the family of Jesus.

 

I think Christian philosophy is definitely more personal. I think what you refer to above is "Christian experience" vs ""Vaisnava experience"

 

I think there is a big bit of irony that that Vaisnavas stress Bhakti, yet have volumes upon volumes PhD material to explain it. That, as in many cases for spiritual science, is a paradox.

 

Also, I should say that WE are the christian experience of contemporary times. and only recently (the last 40 years) have Christians had the gift of Srila Prabhupada's sacrifice.

 

That said, your experience of Jesus and His lila and my experience of His lila are the only "Christian" context we could possibly understand.

 

Regarding philosophy however, Christian philosophy is "possibly" more personal. It lacks the PhD technical terms of contained Vedic literature. For example, Tapas is embodied in persons , e.g. St. John the Baptist

 

If we want to practice austerities, we don't go to a cookbook, but rather seek the intercession of St. John the Baptist. Now if all things are working in vaisnavism, I suppose you could say .. "well St. John is 2000 years back .. " just go find that contemporary "St John" spiritual master and sit at his feet and serve. In that case, I concede .. vaisnavism has the personal edge.

 

thx for the sincere reply as always.

[HerServant 0]

 

you whiners need to get a life.

 

A nice Hindu gentleman was invited to open the Senate with a prayer a few days ago and some demon Christians interrupted.

 

If they could have shot the guy and got a way with it I am sure they would have.

 

Christianity isn't a religion it is a scourge like Islam is.

 

All these inbred Abrahamic religions are a scourge on mankind and their nonsense business in the middle-east is going to end up with a nuclear conflict that is going to pollute the planet for thousands of years.

 

Guruvani, .. I've read a bunch of your posts and I must confess, you are a pretty funny guy.

 

You know this nonsense has nothing to do with religion. The only reason you haven't lumped in eastern religion just yet is because it still remains relatively "pure".

 

But visit India now and you can see the scourges of materialism are degrading religion there at an alarming rate. As materialism ravages our planet, the numbers of orthodox followers of true religion will fade big time.

 

Church attendance for western religions in industrialized nations (US, Euro, etc.) has steadily faded. The under 50 crowd barely attends.

 

So now what do you think will happen in India once (material) education becomes as pervasive in the population as it is in europe and america?

 

Do you think the 500 million or so non brahman castes, once educated in western ideals and doctrines are going to believe that God is a turtle or boar?

[Guruvani 0]

Well, I read some interesting stuff on a web site yesterday and from what I can see I like Judaism better than Christianity.

 

In old Judaism they had goddesses and god.

 

I think it is a damn shame that Christianity had to come along and give Judaism a bad name.

 

I think Judaism has a closer connection to the Vedic culture than did the Christians.

 

I think that any religion without the goddesses is a fraud.

 

In the Gaudiya system, it actually comes down to goddess worship.(radha dasyam)

In Christianity it is all some big male ego god and I ain't diggin' it.

[HerServant 0]

 

Well, I read some interesting stuff on a web site yesterday and from what I can see I like Judaism better than Christianity.

 

In old Judaism they had goddesses and god.

 

I think it is a damn shame that Christianity had to come along and give Judaism a bad name.

 

I think Judaism has a closer connection to the Vedic culture than did the Christians.

 

I think that any religion without the goddesses is a fraud.

 

In the Gaudiya system, it actually comes down to goddess worship.(radha dasyam)

In Christianity it is all some big male ego god and I ain't diggin' it.

 

Judaism nor Islam accept that God incarnates and descends here. So the idea of avatar is not accepted. There is no personal Deity worship in either religion.

 

Yes .. Jews worshipped Radha Krsna. But you have it wrong about goddess worship being messed up by Christianity.

 

In orthodox Christianity, it all comes down to taking the shelter of Mary. The practice of chanting the name Mary (Mariam, Maryam) can be documented as far back as the 3rd century AD. There is a 2nd century inscription indicating that Mary house was considered a Holy place (same as heaven on earth)

 

Also, early "converts" to Christianity (gentiles) were largely "vaisnavas", i.e, worshippers of Radha Krsna living in cities with vibrant Radha Krsna worship (Rhoda and Korous Helios)

 

Many palestinian synagogues have been found to have worshipped Helios

 

( google search: "palestine synagogue helios" ) Helios is the greek name for the hebrew Eli (Eloi is feminine version)

 

Linguistic scholars have proven without question, that Helios Eli/Eloi is the same as Sanskrit Hari/Hare This fact is largely accepted among Indian born vaisnava scholars.

 

The early church understood Jesus to be none other than Helios, which indicates that priests (sanyasis) of the Christianity were Jews that understood Eli to be Helios.

See:

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=794

 

 

Historical evidence reveals that in ancient cities having Helios centric worship, God as "Divine couple" is worshipped.

 

The church teaches that Mary is Mediatrix .. that She is integral, and in some sense equal, to salvation.

 

The cult of Mary that all spiritual gifts given by the Father (Krsna) are only dispensed to devotees by Her. Also, nothing can be given to Krsna directly, but only by Mary.

 

Also it is completely impossible to understand Jesus, unless in the shelter of Mary. Within Mary are the rasas and only by Mary can we encounter the rasas in Her lila and Jesus lila.

 

Christians do not teach spousal rasa directly, but like I've said in the past, I think it impossible to comment on a spousal rasa experience.

 

In fact, I don't believe anyone can experience spousal rasa and live because it can only be experienced in a very high loka (i.e. you could not return to the body after such an experience)

 

If anyone claims to have experienced spousal rasa, but has not externally shown the external sign that Mahaprabhu showed in the temple Jagganath puri, then they are liars.

 

No ordinary mortal can witness it and stay in the body. So nobody can write about it.

 

Finally, not all of even Sri Caitanya's associates experienced spousal rasa, then why is there so much emphasis on this by Vaisnavas?

 

It sounds like pentecostal born again Christians saying "you have to speak in tongues, or be slain in the spirit, etc. .. "

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

The Hebrew Goddess

 

 

 

Painting by

Jonathon Earl Bowser

 

 

 

<b><big>Asherah, known as the "Lady of the Sea" </big></b>

 

Asherah, the Shekinah, consort and beloved of Yahweh. God-the-Mother. Her sacred pillars or poles once stood right beside Yahweh's altar, embracing it. Moses and Aaron both carried one of these Asherah "poles" as a sacred staff of power. The Children of Israel were once dramatically healed simply by gazing at the staff with serpents suspended from it. This symbol, the snakes and the staff, has become the modern universal symbol for doctors and healers.* Asherah was also widely known in the Middle Eastern ancient world as a Goddess of Healing. Then She was removed forcibly from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures around 400 or 500 B.C. Her priestesses & priests, known by the headbands they wore, worshiped on hill-tops, such as Zion, Mount of Olives, Har Megiddo and countless others. Daughter of Zion, a term found numerous times in the Old Testament, was perhaps a term for a priestess of Asherah. It later came to mean the "City of God," or Jerusalem herself. As the "official" state worship became increasingly male oriented, and the establishment became hostile toward all forms of Asherah worship, a time of conflict and bloodshed lasting over a hundred years began. Those that still clung to Her worship paid the price with their lives at the hands of King Josiah and other rabid Yahwists. (Story in the 2nd Kings ). But She could not be torn from the hearts and souls of Her people.

 

 

Here is an excerpt from one of our Mystery School lessons:

Exercise 5: (Extra Credit) If you're really brave, not worried about being called a "heretic Jezebel," try making some Asherah cakes. Add raisins if you can! "Even as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and are fond of raisin cakes." Hosea 3:1 The commentary for that verse says: "Raisin cakes: offerings to the fertility goddess Ashera, the female counterpart of Baal; cf Jer 7:18; 44:19." The name Baal means simply Lord or husband. In modern hebrew, the word for husband is baal, used by millions of Israel wives to refer to their hubbies.

 

*A word about snakes: The Serpent, though a frightening symbol because of its ability to bring death, stood also for ancient wisdom and immortality. (Note that it hung out in the Tree of Knowledge and preached a doctrine of immortality, "ye shall NOT surely die.") Many early societies revered the snake and used it to symbolize different ideas. In much the same way, today we revere the Lion or other ferocious big-cats even though they're dangerous. An early American symbol used the snake as a statement of power, a warning, saying, "Don't tread on me!"

 

[Guruvani 0]

 

Asherah from the Religion of the Canaanites

She was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, and is the goddess who is also called Athirau-Yammi: "She Who Walks on (or in) the Sea." She was the chief goddess of Tyre in the 15th century BC, and bore the appellation qudshu, "holiness." In the OT Asherah appears as a goddess by the side of Baal, whose consort she evidently became, at least among the Canaanites of the south. However, most biblical references to the name point obviously to some cult object of wood, which might be cut down and burned, possibly the goddesses' image (1 Kings 15:13, 2 King 21:7). Her prophets are mentioned (1 Kings 18:19), and the vessels used in her service referred to (2 Kings 23:4). The existence of numerous symbols, in each of which the goddess was believed to be immanent, led to the creation of numerous forms of her person, which were described as Asherim. The cult object itself, whatever it was, was utterly detestible to faithful worshippers of Yahweh (1 Kings 15:13), and was set up on the high places beside the "altars of incense" (hammanim) and the "stone pillars" (masseboth). The translation of asherah by "grove" in some translations follows a singular tradition preserved in the LXX and the Vulgate which apparently connects the goddess' image with the usual place of its adoration.

A Hebrew inscription on a broken storage jar, found in Kuntillet 'Ajrud in north-eastern Sinai and dated from the beginning of the eighth century BCE has three primitive figures: a standing male figure in the foreground; a female figure just behind him; and a seated musician in the background. The Hebrew inscription above the drawing reads: 'I bless you by Yhwh of Samaria and his Asherah' (Dever, 1984; King, 1989). Furthermore, a tomb inscription from el-Qom in Judea, dated to the eighth century BCE too, concludes with the words: 'to Yhwh and his Asherah' (Margalit, 1989, 1990 and further references there).

Asherah, like Anat, is a well-documented goddess of the northwest Semitic pantheon. We remember that, according to the Bible itself, in the ninth century BCE Asherah was officially worshipped in Israel; her cult was matronized by Jezebel who, supposedly, imported it from her native Phoenician homeland. Other traces in the Bible either angrily acknowledge her worship as goddess (2 Kings 14.13, for instance, where another royal lady is involved), or else demote her from goddess to a sacred tree or pole set up near an altar (2 Kings 13.6, 17.16; Deuteronomy 16.21 and more). The apparent need for the hostile and widely distributed polemics against her worship constitutes evidence for its continued popularity. Linguistically, Margalit claims (1989), 'Asherah' signifies '[she] who walks behind', displaying a prototypic if divine attitude that befits a wife (and is reflected in the Kuntillet Ajrud drawing). Thus both the partially suppressed and distorted biblical evidence and the archaeological evidence combine to suggest one conclusion. The cult of a goddess, considered the spouse of Yhwh, was celebrated throughout the First Temple era in the land, and beyond this period at the Jewish settlement in Elephantine (in Egypt).

Above two paragraphs are an excerpt from longer Article by a Hebrew professor. NOTE: "She who walks behind" is not considered the usual way to translate Asherah. Encyclopedia Mythica's Asherah entry states: Etymology: She who walks in the Sea.

If you are researching Her, searching for Her in the Bible, in the Torah, in Kabbala, there is one book you gotta read...

 

 

<b><big>The Hebrew Goddess</big></b>, by Raphael Patai

<b><big>Was the Hebrew God also a Woman? </big></b>

 

The Bible gives the impression that all ancient Jews shared a common belief system ... with only an occasional group straying from the fold. But the evidence paints a different picture. As Dr. Patai states, "... it would be strange if the Hebrew-Jewish religion, which flourished for centuries in a region of intensive goddess cults, had remained immune to them." Archaeologists have uncovered Hebrew settlements where the goddesses Asherah and Astarte-Anath were routinely worshipped. And in fact, we find that for about 3,000 years, the Hebrews worshipped female deities which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood.

And then there's the matter of the Cherubim that sat atop the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Fashioned by Phoenician craftsmen for Solomon and Ahab, an ivory tablet shows two winged females facing each other. And one tablet shows male and female members of the Cherubim embracing in an explicitly sexual position that embarrassed later Jewish historians ... and even the pagans were shocked when they saw it for the first time. [The Star of David, two triangles "embracing" became the coded symbol for God & Goddess locked in a "creating" posture....!]

This cult of the feminine goddess, though often repressed, remained a part of the faith of the Jewish people. Goddesses answered the need for mother, lover, queen, intercessor ... and even today, lingers cryptically in the traditional Hebrew Sabbath invocation.

[Tirisilex 0]

Well.. from an Objective point of view.. They are equal.. Both are as personal as the other..

[Guruvani 0]

 

Jesus taught His disciples and hence His parampara/sampradaya to pray:

 

"Our Father (Abba i.e. Daddy) , who are in heaven .... "

 

The Vaisnava acharyas taught to pray with maha mantra:

 

"Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna .. "

 

What is a more personal way to call God:

 

Daddy or Krsna ?

 

As far as God is concerned he likes being father least of all.

That is why he makes Lord Siva the father of the living entities in this universe.

 

Krishna is the lover.

He is not the father.

 

The father is for asking things from (gimme this, gimme that)

 

God prefers to be loved for his beauty and sweetness, not for what he can offer his children in need.

 

I think that Vaishnava is much more personal.

 

One's children grow up and go away, but the lover she stays around forever.

[Guruvani 0]

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.273 purport,

 

 

Lord Śiva is considered the father of this universe, and material nature is considered the mother. The father and mother are known as Lord Śiva and goddess Durgā. Together, Lord Śiva's genitals and the vagina of goddess Durgā are worshiped as the śiva-lińga. This is the origin of the material creation.

[Guruvani 0]

so, if you worship God as father in this material universe then Lord Siva is your God.

 

[Tirisilex 0]

:eek3:

[Tirisilex 0]

I see Krishna as my Best friend.. Is a friend greater than a Family Member?

Some will say Family.. others will say friends.. it all depends on your personal experiences

[mahak 0]

Actually, bottom line, both can be considered vaisnavism. Lord Jesus expects his disciples to develop their relationship with His father, and the vaisnava acarya wants his disciples to develop their relationship with the supreme person, who is the father of Lord Jesus Christ. So we get down to rasas here, which rasa is better.

 

The answer is that it is a poor question because to speculate on something such as a personal relationship with the Supreme Lord is out of the jurisdiction of someone not in that personal relationship. It is like asking, who do you like better, your daughter or your wife. The answer is that the love is not possible for others to understand, the flavor is impossible for anyone else to taste.

 

So, we have to consider the movements to answer this question. Christianity is not represented very well by those who minister such. The teachings do not even cover how one can even come to such a point. Basic christianity is all about the avoidance of sin to secure salvation. The catholic is much better, because while they, too, seek salvation, they pray "But most of all, because I have offended you, Oh Lord, who are all good and deserving of all my Love". This is a very wise teaching, that we avoid sinful activity out of love, not fear of some fire and brimstone nonsense.

 

The reason I personally vote for vaisnavism over christianity in the question is because vaisnavism has descriptions of God that go far beyond anything covered in biblical scriptures. One cannot love without reason, such is sentimental fanaticism, and very dangerous. The concept of God being the reservoir of all pleasure, the all attractive personality, even the hero of the great battle of life, these are attractive features. This is lovable. I cannot love "i am who am". I cannot love one who is forbidden to say his name. So, while jesus christ says love his father as he does, there are insufficient records of his teachings (probably by design) to give us any concrete reason to do so. The reason christianity is considered by myself to be quite insufficient is not because of Lord Jesus, but rather his unscrupulous following over the two millenia since he appeared. Had we the actual biographies and teachings recorded by the queen of magdalia and salome the midwife, (summarily burned by the worshipper of sol invictus constantine, and the demon pope sylvester), there undoubtedly would be available teachings of rasa. The cathars had these teachings, and they were exterminated because of it. The abyssinians had these teachings, and they were also exterminated.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

 

As far as God is concerned he likes being father least of all.

That is why he makes Lord Siva the father of the living entities in this universe.

 

Krishna is the lover.

He is not the father.

 

The father is for asking things from (gimme this, gimme that)

 

God prefers to be loved for his beauty and sweetness, not for what he can offer his children in need.

 

I think that Vaishnava is much more personal.

 

One's children grow up and go away, but the lover she stays around forever.

 

Well .. you have a point that in our experience as parents, kids ask gimme this and gimme that .. but the Lord's prayer teaches the opposite perspective .. Daddy, .. not my will, but thy will.

 

The conjugal love experience, according to Vaisnava acharyas (srila Rupa Goswami) can only be witnessed if you are like a small child.

 

 

So Vaisnava teaching is that you have to be small child first before conjugal love rasa. The small child is the only one who calls the father "daddy" and the mother "mama". When the kid gets 8 or 10, they are embarrassed to call mom "mommy". But the 2,3,4,5 year old .. they easily and freely call for "daddy" .. "mommy"

 

The smaller the child the more dependent on the parent. The mother and father love the tiny children because of their tenderness and sweetness.

 

Therefore, we have to hope to truly be able to call Krsna "Daddy" in the tender consciousness of a tiny child..

[Guruvani 0]

Well, if I really think about it, I have to say that the whole question of which faith is more personal is just a formula for argument.

 

If one thinks Christian is more personal than Vaishnava, then that should be the person's personal preference, but asking for people to take sides or make a choice just seems to be an attempt to insult one or the other.

 

In this case I think the author is trying to say that Christian is more personal than Vaishnava which is my my view just picking a fight or trying to create dissention.

 

so, if someone comes back and says Christian is just a sentimental religion without any philosophy then they should be willing to deal with the response.