Hindus and Iskconites-Both at Fault

[tackleberry 1]

Lately, we've been seeing heated exchanges between iskconites and hindus. To be blunt, both parties are to blame. The iskconite habit of elevating every Tom, Dick, and Jesus to the status of a vaishnava is becoming very, very annoying. There are only two options here:

 

#1 Jesus never existed. So he can't be vaishnava.

#2 He existed, but never mentioned Vishnu's name even once. And Vaishnavism is the belief in the supremacy of Vishnu! Obviously, it would be illogical to consider Jesus as a vaishnava, when the guy didn't even mention the primary deity of vaishnavism.

 

So regardless of the guy's historicity, he wasn't vaishnava. So iskconites might do well to stop their 'Jesus loves you' fanaticism. They must focus more on Krishna and the gita instead.

 

And to the Hindus....you say all paths are valid, they all lead to the truth. If that's the case, will you accept (as valid) a person or religion that says, "Every path except mine is false." If you do, you're in effect discarding your theory that all paths are valid. If you don't, you're contradicting your original contention that all paths are valid. Either way, your theory goes down the drain. So give up this pecular fanaticism of attacking people who don't to the view that all paths are valid.

 

Hope from now on, both parties can be a little more mature, and come to an understanding.

[raghu 2]

As I mentioned before, not all "Hindus" accept the doctrine of radical universalism. This is primarily the view point of neo-advaitins like Vivekananda, Sai Baba, etc. In traditional Hindu sampradayas great pains are taken to distinguish one's own system of philosophy from those of others. This includes even Sri Shankaracharya.

 

I don't really care to get into a debate about who is and is not a Hindu. It's a functional definition useful for discourse rather than a theological term. Most would include Vaishnava sampradayas under the umbrella term "Hindu," but they most certainly do not accept that all paths are "valid."

[seamusjcarroll 0]

philosophy or truth , mythology, your life my life path took result gained where do you stand as a snake at shiva feet to drink milk or poison journey in journey out milk found at prabhupada feet is our gate

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

to each their own, follow Dharma, seek the truth who is to say mine is better then yours.

respect

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sarva gattah 0]

 

So iskconites might do well to stop their 'Jesus loves you' fanaticism. They must focus more on Krishna and the gita instead.

 

Its not the in house ISKCON devotee's, it is those on the web who still have doubts. Go to a Srimad Bhagavatam class at an ISKCON Temple like Melbourne - no one talks about Jesus because they are way to busy reading Prabhupadas books

[Beggar 0]

When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu preached to the Muslims he explained that Krsna is the Supreme Lord and that the reason His name is not in the Koran is that the people in those lands did not have the qualification to receive the Krsna Conception directly. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and later day preachers like Srila Prabhupada took the same approach with Christians. So Christ was a Vaisnava in very a very general way but not specifically. But as Srila Sridhar Maharaj ask rhetorically, "is Jesus stagnant or dynamic?" In other words can we think that he will eventually come to the Krsna conception. Is it possible? After all anything is possible.

[xexon 0]

This is the same problem that plagues all religions. They were inspired by people who had divine experiences themselves but often left no spiritual heir to explain it after their death.

 

There is a lot of growth around light sources as we all know.

 

Most of this growth manifests itself as religions or some other "discipline" based upon those words spoken by a master. Those who strike a chord with a master will attempt to carry the written words forward after the master has passed away.

 

If they only have a mental attraction instead of a true spiritual one, they tend to wash out with time. A true spiritual thirst is a terrible thing. You will sell all that you own to chase after it. Even one lifetime to another.

 

Just remember that the path that runs beneath your feet is also a part of maya. It traps worldly people like flies on a flystrip in the heat of a summer day.

 

The rigidity of a system can blind you to God as much as it can deliver you.

 

Careful where you step in the pasture of life.

 

 

 

x

[suchandra 1]

 

Lately, we've been seeing heated exchanges between iskconites and hindus. To be blunt, both parties are to blame. The iskconite habit of elevating every Tom, Dick, and Jesus to the status of a vaishnava is becoming very, very annoying. There are only two options here:

 

#1 Jesus never existed. So he can't be vaishnava.

#2 He existed, but never mentioned Vishnu's name even once. And Vaishnavism is the belief in the supremacy of Vishnu! Obviously, it would be illogical to consider Jesus as a vaishnava, when the guy didn't even mention the primary deity of vaishnavism.

 

So regardless of the guy's historicity, he wasn't vaishnava. So iskconites might do well to stop their 'Jesus loves you' fanaticism. They must focus more on Krishna and the gita instead.

 

And to the Hindus....you say all paths are valid, they all lead to the truth. If that's the case, will you accept (as valid) a person or religion that says, "Every path except mine is false." If you do, you're in effect discarding your theory that all paths are valid. If you don't, you're contradicting your original contention that all paths are valid. Either way, your theory goes down the drain. So give up this pecular fanaticism of attacking people who don't to the view that all paths are valid.

 

Hope from now on, both parties can be a little more mature, and come to an understanding.

Basically Jesus the son of Christ, which comes from Kristos, Krishna, preached, that the Supreme Lord is not limited but unlimited and therefore has many names like Krishna, Govinda and Damodara. Since Jesus found himself in that situation to preach according time, circumstance and place, he presented a name of God which those dessert people could relate to. From Jesus' teachings: "Your holy Name will be for ever glorified." Very similiar what the yuga-dharma says, harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha.

 

 

1. Causelessmercy - Bhagavad-gita 7.1 - Sydney, February 16, 1973

If you have got any name, holy name of God, you can chant that also. But ... Why should I chant that? But if you have got any name, actually must be name of God, not a fiction or

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/730216BG.SYD.htm

</small>

2. Causelessmercy - Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.30 - Honolulu, May 29, 1976

So any name you prefer, you chant, you ll get result. This is the perfect God, factually, He has no name. How many names you will remember? But His names are given according to

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/760529SB.HON.htm

</small>

3. Causelessmercy - Room Conversation with Metaphysics Society - February 21, 1975...

And this eternal thing cannot have any name because then it would be limited, and ... why the supreme controller will not have any name? That is ignorance.Lady (Hṛdayānanda): She s

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/750221rc.car.htm

</small>

4. Causelessmercy - Lecture to Technology Students (M.I.T.) - Boston, May 5, 1968

But if you have got any name of God, you can ... and billions of names. So any name is as good as Kṛṣṇa. ... Similarly, if you have got any name for calling the Supreme Lord

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/680505LE.BOS.htm

</small>5. Causelessmercy - Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.1 - London, August 7, 1971

He has got hundreds of thousands of names. So people who protest that God cannot have any name They ... God cannot have any name. Or God has ... You cannot give any name to God without

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/710807SB.LON.htm

</small>6. Causelessmercy - Lecture Engagement - Montreal, June 15, 1968

Kṛṣṇa name is not very suitable, you can accept any name. That doesn t matter. Our proposition is you chant God s name. That is our proposal. Therefore it is universal. If

<small>http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/680615LE.MON.htm

"</small>So people who protest that God cannot have any name… They say that God cannot have any name. Yes, we agree with them. God cannot have any name. Or God has so many names, how we’ll address Him? The śāstra says that He has got many names, but the chief name is Krishna. In the Atharva Veda it is said. Kṛṣṇa is the son of Devakī, Vasudeva. Those who are very much strict to understand everything on the evidence of Veda, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has given them quotation from Vedas, that “In the Vedas, Kṛṣṇa’s name is there, His father’s name is there.” Like that.So God’s name… Actually, there is no God’s name. There is name, but He has got so many names. His name is given according to His pastimes. Just like according to… It has got meaning. You cannot give any name to God without bearing any meaning. That is the Vedic significance. When we say “Krishna” name of God, that means He’s all-attractive. All-attractive means He’s not only attractive to the devotees but to the nondevotees. It’s not that Krishn is one-sided, He’s attractive to the devotees. No. To the nondevotees also.<small>"

</small>Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.1.1

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

London, August 7, 1971

710807SB.LON

[CCC 0]

 

When Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu preached to the Muslims he explained that Krsna is the Supreme Lord and that the reason His name is not in the Koran is that the people in those lands did not have the qualification to receive the Krsna Conception directly. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and later day preachers like Srila Prabhupada took the same approach with Christians. So Christ was a Vaisnava in very a very general way but not specifically. But as Srila Sridhar Maharaj ask rhetorically, "is Jesus stagnant or dynamic?" In other words can we think that he will eventually come to the Krsna conception. Is it possible? After all anything is possible.

 

Yes Good points. Time, Place and Circumstances

[Shivaduta 0]

The Blindmen and the Elephant - by John Godfrey Saxe

 

It was six men of Hindustan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind)

That each by observation

Might satisfy the mind.

 

The first approached the Elephant

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side

At once began to bawl:

"Bless me, it seems the Elephant

Is very like a wall".

 

The second, feeling of his tusk,

Cried, "Ho! What have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me 'tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear".

 

The third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Then boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a snake."

 

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

"What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain," quoth he;

"'Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!"

 

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: "E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!"

 

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant

Is very like a rope!"

 

And so these men of Hindustan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right

And all were in the wrong.

 

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen