Universality and transcendance

[cbrahma]

It is has been noted by some of the members of the forum in a somewhat

pejorative way that being, or having been a Christian is a disqualification from understanding Vaisnavism. Sarcastic dismissive name-calling , like 'Hare Christian' is the result of such a mentality.

What is the scriptural, philosophical and authoritative basis for such a mentality? And let's forgo the personal attacks and a return to the sectarian wars.

[theist]

 

It is has been noted by some of the members of the forum in a somewhat

pejorative way that being, or having been a Christian is a disqualification from understanding Vaisnavism. Sarcastic dismissive name-calling , like 'Hare Christian' is the result of such a mentality.

What is the scriptural, philosophical and authoritative basis for such a mentality? And let's forgo the personal attacks and a return to the sectarian wars.

 

Good question. I strongly suspect there is no scriptural, philosophical or authoritative basis for such a crippled mentality therefore I don't expect any honest attempts at answering your question. No doubt some mumbo jumbo will follow however.

[sanatan]

Personally, I've often been openly dismissive and critical of the "Christian Fundie" or evangelical approach and mentality, and have noted the same mentality among Vaisnavas; some are regulars on this forum.

 

As was discussed in another thread, Christianity and Vaisnavism share the same big-picture requirements for spiritual success: Personal sincerity and dependence on God's mercy.

 

In other words, "there is a God, and he's not you".

 

From the Vedic viewpoint, I don't see any glaring scriptural justification for a sectarian mentality; from the Christian viewpoint this justification looks to be largely based in the writings of St. Paul, who no doubt was responding to the "time, place, and circumstances" of 2K years ago. There's just too much of a genuine spiritual nature in Paul's works to write him off as a sectarian preacher.

[cbrahma]

 

Personally, I've often been openly dismissive and critical of the "Christian Fundie" or evangelical approach and mentality, and have noted the same mentality among Vaisnavas; some are regulars on this forum.

 

As was discussed in another thread, Christianity and Vaisnavism share the same big-picture requirements for spiritual success: Personal sincerity and dependence on God's mercy.

 

In other words, "there is a God, and he's not you".

 

From the Vedic viewpoint, I don't see any glaring scriptural justification for a sectarian mentality; from the Christian viewpoint this justification looks to be largely based in the writings of St. Paul, who no doubt was responding to the "time, place, and circumstances" of 2K years ago. There's just too much of a genuine spiritual nature in Paul's works to write him off as a sectarian preacher.

One shouldn't lump all Christians into the 'fundie' stereotype anymore than one should lump all Vaisnavas into the caste-conscious brahmin. I could also say that the most vituperous of bloggers are often those with strong alegiance to a diksa guru and the requirements of diksa. This is possibly the cause of the strong sectarian animosity.

[sanatan]

 

One shouldn't lump all Christians into the 'fundie' stereotype anymore than one should lump all Vaisnavas into the caste-conscious brahmin.

If I came across that way, it wasn't intended.

 

Fundies and evangelicals definitely make up a large subgroup in the Christian population, but in no way do they represent all Christians or have a monopoly on Christian thought and philosophy.

 

I could also say that the most vituperous of bloggers are often those with strong alegiance to a diksa guru and the requirements of diksa. This is possibly the cause of the strong sectarian animosity.

 

You have a strong point there.

[AncientMariner]

Even though it is meant as an insult, being called a "Hare Christian" does not really bother me but I understand and appreciate the point of this thread. I have come to appreciate many aspects of Krishna Consciousness and still at the same time have kept my appreciation of Jesus. I don't see that changing anytime soon so I guess that makes me a "Hare Christian" so to speak, even though I don't actually consider myself worthy of being called a Vaisnava or a Christian. It does seem like a sectarian mindset when Vaisnavas object to people worshipping Jesus as a spiritual master but I have not found any evidence that Prabhupada had any such objections and Prabhupada commands a lot of respect in the Vaisnava world.

 

 

I have come to the conclusion there are some Vaisnavas that were raised Christians and later converted to Vaisnavism because it is superior to Christianity in all ways and they seem to be of the opinion that to become an official vaisnava one must become completely Hindu and completely denounce Christianity. That is the official right of passage into the Hindu tradition when the mature Vaisnava fully rejects Jesus. That seems to be the rationale behind this brand of sectarianism but who knows for sure.

[raghu]

 

It is has been noted by some of the members of the forum in a somewhat

pejorative way that being, or having been a Christian is a disqualification from understanding Vaisnavism. Sarcastic dismissive name-calling , like 'Hare Christian' is the result of such a mentality.

What is the scriptural, philosophical and authoritative basis for such a mentality? And let's forgo the personal attacks and a return to the sectarian wars.

 

Being formerly a Christian is not necessarily a disqualification from understanding Vaishnavism. Mixing Christian and/or other non-Vedic religions with Vaishnavism is. The latter is the consistent stance of honest and sensible Vaishnavas on this forum. The former is a strawman created by iskcon-christian syncretists to obfuscate the issue.

 

As far as what is the scriptural basis for decreeing the mixing of religions, it is no different from the basis of Vaishnavas preaching heavily against mayavada and other religious misconceptions. Wrong information cannot lead to right knowledge. Period.

 

One cannot claim "universality" or "transcendence" simply by taking an indiscriminate, politically-correct, all-accepting view of different and contradictory religions. Accepting one thing as correct logically means accepting that the contradictory view or views are incorrect. Accepting that apaurusheya-agamas passed down via guru-parampara is a valid means of acquiring right knowledge necessarily means rejecting as valid the revelations received by people who become prophets by popular vote. Accepting a religion that speaks of one's identity as a spiritual being means rejecting religions based on "chosen people" and other bodily concepts. Accepting as true a religion whose God-concept is compassionate and impartial means rejecting as true a religion based on a God-concept who plays racial favorites and sends plagues to punish the children of those who do not believe in him. And so on and so forth. These are all very simple and elementary points, but unfortunately the iskcon christian lobby can do nothing more than regurgitate the same pedestrian lines in response "the bible isn't the real christianity, we know the real christianity,we are cultivating devotion free of all mundane designations,you are a Hindu fanatic,God isn't limited to those who speak Sanskrit," etc.

 

I have listed on this thread (posting #197 a little ways down) a few of the many egregious misconceptions that are held by iskconites due to their imbibing and mixing Christian ideas with Vaishnavism.

 

As always, feel free to ignore these points and post more ad hominem attacks to skirt the issue.

[Dark Warrior]

Raghu, I know you disapprove of my aggressive approach when it comes to refuting Hare Christnas (my fault!), but I certainly respect your views, which is the most sensible and rational way of looking at things.

 

It is indeed a lovely idea to assume that God likes people to approach Him by different paths, or that all deities (Vedic and Non-Vedic) are equal in every respect. But unfortunately for 'secularists', 'universalists' and 'transcendentalists', this isn't the case. Scripture clearly advocates the worship of ONLY Vasudeva and no other.

 

Christianity only has a concept of a 'personal' god and surrender. Shaivism is replete with Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Kaivalya and Saranagati to Shiva. Yet, our acharyas reject Shaivism, despite its great antiquity and legacy of Shiva bhaktas.

 

cBrahma and Theist are prime examples of persons who haven't completely shed their sentiments. They want us to accept Christianity. When we say Christianity is unvedic, they will start questioning the logic of our own Vedic Scriptures. This clearly shows the hypocrisy of Christian Vaishnavas.

 

I would never hurt a Christian's sentiments by telling him his faith is false. But since these Christian Vaishnavas pretend to follow our faith, I have no problems in pointing out the failings of that faith.

 

And then, they accuse us of sectarianism. But consider this - Vaishnavism says that other faiths are not valid. BUT, we DO NOT DENY that the people of other faiths will have divine experience. Certainly, Sriman Narayana is impartial. Even if a Jiva has no jnana, He may, out of His independence, give that Jiva moksha. So, a Christian may get some blissful experience of God, or he may even get Moksha despite his inadequate knowledge.

 

But it is to be understood that such divine experiences are NOT due to the validity of the faith, but due to the fact that Sriman Narayana is independent and His decisions are unquestionable. He may give a Christian moksha and a Vaishnava may be left in samsara. But even so, Vaishnavism is still the path to follow.

 

Thus, Vaishnavism is not sectarian.

 

cBrahma and Theist have meagre knowledge of who Sriman Narayana really is. That is because they haven't let go of their sentiments. Therfore, I cannot explain it to them either. It is only to be understood by your own realisation.

 

And I may add that not all converts are like this. During my stay abroad, I met many American Vaishnavas, who had completely shed all sentiments and embraced Vaishnavism fully. I had a great time chatting with them about the Kalyana Gunas of the Lord. Even in South India, there is a convert named Joseph who denounces Christianity as unvedic. Too bad all people are not like them.

 

Incidentally, I may add that chanting names like 'Jesus', 'Elohim' or Christ' is in no way equal to chanting Vishnu's names. Before these people say, 'why only Sanskrit names', let me point out the deep and lofty meanings of Sri Vishnu Sahasranama which depicts the gunas of the Lord. Also, each and every name of the Lord brings out something to this effect. 'Vishnu' indicates His all-pervading aspect. 'Vasudeva' signifies that everything is in Him. 'Narayana' indicates His gunas, His functions and roopam. Therfore, chanting 'Allah' or 'Jehovah' is useless.

[cbrahma]

The question of this thread is about the sastric and authoritative evidence that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism. Bald statements about its sentimentality and inferiority are not proof of anything. Dark Warrior has generously provided himself as an example of a self-professed Vaisnava who speaks of Christianity in deletorius terms entirely from his own authority.

I don't see how Jesus is sentimental. Picking up one's cross is not sentimental. Doing the will of the Father is not sentimental. Loving your enemies is not sentimental. In fact, it is impossible without Divine grace.

Jesus was crucified for his 'sentimentality'.

 

 

Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23,

 

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

 

 

 

 

 

[cbrahma]

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur appeared in 1838 in an aristrocratic family of Calcutta. Named Kedaranath, his youth was spent absorbed in studies. A prolific reader and writer, he authored many articles and poems in English. He entered the Hindu School as a student in the class in 1856 at the University of Calcutta, where he studied the philosophical works of Kant, Goethe, Hizel, Swedenburg, Schopenhuer, Hume, Voltaire and others. He later began to study the works of the Brahma movement, along with the Bible and other Christian books, debates between eastern and western thinkers, and the Koran. In his biography, he states that he preferred Christianity to Brahmoism because of Christianity's clarity as to the transcendence of the one Godhead.

 

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur on the nature of sectarianism from the introduction to the Sri Krsna Samhita

 

There are three types of standards-alocakagata, alocanagata, and alocyagata. Alocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of alocakagata are tilaka, neck beads, saffron robes, and the baptism that is practiced abroad.

 

The different activities practiced in the process of worship are called alocanagata. Examples of alocanagata are sacrifices, austerities, fire sacrifices, vows, studying scriptures, deity worship, constructing temples, respecting the purity of various trees and rivers, dressing like sannyasis, acting like acaryas, dressing like brahmacaris or grhasthas, closing one s eyes, respecting particular types of books, rules and regulations in eating, and respecting the purity of particular times and places. The examples of alocyagata are attributing personalism or impersonalism on the Supreme Lord, installing deities, exhibiting the mood of an incarnation of the Lord, speculating on heaven and hell, and describing the future destination of the soul. The different forms of these spiritual activities create divisions of sectarianism.

 

Differences that arise from places, times, languages, behaviors, foods, dresses, and natures of various communities are incorporated within people s spiritual practices and gradually make one community so completely different from another community that even the consideration that everyone is a human being may cease to exist. Due to these differences there is disagreement, cessation of social intercourse, and fighting, even up to the point of killing one another. When an asslike mentality becomes prominent within the kanistha-adhikaris, they certainly indulge in these things. But if they develop a swanlike mentality, then they do not take part in quarrels; rather, they endeavor to attain a higher level. Madhyama-adhikaris do not quarrel so much about external standards, but they are always attacked by philosophical disagreements. Sometimes they condemn the standards of neophytes and establish their own standards as superior. They condemn the neophytes deity worship in order to establish the worshipable Lord as formless. In such cases, they are also considered asslike people. Otherwise, if they had a swanlike mentality and a desire to attain a higher level, they would respect others practices and inquire about higher topics. Contradictions actually arise only due to asslike mentality. Swanlike persons consider the necessity for different practices according to one‘s qualification, so they are naturally detached from sectarian quarrels. In this regard, it should be understood that both asslike and swanlike people are found amongst the kanistha-adhikaris and madhyama-adhikaris. I do not expect that asslike people will accept this book with respect. If neophytes and madhyama-adhikaris become completely indifferent in regard to the contradictions found in various practices and try to advance further, then they become swanlike persons. Then they are our respectable and dear friends. Although swanlike personalities may accept a particular practice from birth or childhood according to instructions they have received, they nevertheless remain indifferent and nonsectarian.

 

 

[Dark Warrior]

 

I don't see how Jesus is sentimental. Picking up one's cross is not sentimental. Doing the will of the Father is not sentimental. Loving your enemies is not sentimental. In fact, it is impossible without Divine grace.

Jesus was crucified for his 'sentimentality'.

 

Love your enemies - Lord Buddha.

 

Do your Duty - Nayanmars, the devotees of Shiva.

 

Do the will of the Lord - Shaiva Siddantha is all about Saranagati, ie, surrender and loving devotion to Shiva.

 

Ahimsa - Central to Jainism. Read Mahavira's teachings.

 

Jesus was crucified for whom? Shiva or Vishnu?

 

The fact is, loving one's enemies, doing good, doing one's duty are central to non-vaishnavite faiths like Buddhism, Jainism and Shaivism. Then HOW is Christianity Vaishnavism?

 

Let me tell you a story. There was a great devotee of Siva. He used to treat all Siva bhaktas with the greatest reverance. One day, Shiva himself came to this person, disguised as an old man, a Siva Bhakta and said:

 

Shiva - please wash my clothes. Finish the job before nightfall, otherwise I shall freeze to death in the cold night without clothes.

 

Devotee - I shall do so.

 

He was unable to complete the job by night. So, rather than acknowledging that he was unable to serve a Siva bhakta, he attempted to commit suicide by ramming his head against a wall. Then, Shiva stopped him and revealed his identity.

 

This is a very touching story. But these people are not regarded as Vaishnavas. They are regarded as those who have not realised God fully.

 

So tell me, how is Jesus related to Vaishnavism, when a great Siva bhakta like this person is not?

 

 

The question of this thread is about the sastric and authoritative evidence that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism.

 

Shiva Purana contains information about Samsara, transmigration, and other such stuff. But it is classified as Tamo Guna. So, where is the sastric evidence that the Bible, which doesn't even contain the basic knowledge, is a Vaishnavite book?

 

 

 

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

 

 

Tell me, is the 'Kingdom of Heaven' Kailasa, Indra Loka or Vaikuntha? We do not know, because the Bible does not say which. Hence, Jesus is not a Vaishnava.

 

 

 

[cbrahma]

Since in spite of your superior knowledge you still don't seem to understand the question I will ask it for the third time.

Where is the sastric , disciplic evidence that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Since in spite of your superior knowledge you still don't seem to understand the question I will ask it for the third time.

Where is the sastric , disciplic evidence that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism?

 

*Sigh*. Doesn't it speak for itself?

 

Where is sastric evidence that says Jesus was a Vaishnava? Tell me, did Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya or anyone say Christianity is Vaishnavism?

 

Many Vaishnava acharyas were aware of a religion named Shaktism, but nobody even cared to debate with shaktas (except Sankaracharya). This does not mean Shaktism is Vedic, but rather that Shaktas are not worth arguing with. The same goes for Christianity.

 

Our acharyas have refuted a personal faith like Shaivism. How long do you think it would take for them to refute Christianity?

 

Why should any acharya even bother with an immature faith like Christianity?

 

Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism for the following reasons:

 

- Lack of spiritual knowledge. The Gnostics had something in the vein of advaita, and the traditional Christians are completely clueless about the basics. Hence, refuted.

 

- The message is way too hazy and confusing.

 

- It is not even clear who the man Jesus was. Hence, to call him a Vaishnava is preposterous.

 

- Jesus did not even have my realisation of God. What makes him and other christian mystics Vaishnavas?

 

- It is NOT mentioned in our sastras anywhere that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism. But Sastras do warn us of other spurious faiths.

 

Jesus is often called a Saktyavesa avatar. This is refuted as follows:

 

- A shaktyavesa avatar either glorifies Sri Hari (Narada) or remains silent about God (Buddha). Jesus talked of a 'God', but he did not specify which God in the Vedic Pantheon he was talking about.

 

- A shaktyavesa avatar should atleast talk of the Vedas. Jesus doesn't mention it.

 

- Jesus is not even mentioned in texts. Now, Sri Hari can act independent of the sastras, but He never does, because He wishes people to place full faith in scriptures.

 

- The Bhagavatam mentions there are innumerable avatars. This does not mean there are unknown avatars, but rather pertains to the antaryami, the archa avatars and also the avatars of countless yugas. Not to Jesus.

 

Your blind belief is simply preventing you from realising that Christianity is not even as deep as Shaivism. Therfore, Christianity is not Vaishnavism.

 

EDIT: Since I have no desire to pull away cBrahma from his beliefs, I will end with this.

 

1) No acharya has ever recognised Christianity as a bonafide religion.

 

2) The basic morals of Christianity are found in Buddhism, Jainism and other such religions.

 

3) Mysticism is also found in all religions. When a soul aspires to find God, no doubt, he gets an experience. Vaishnavas are not mystics, because what they have is a result of what Vishnu gave them. It isn't mysticism because we don't attempt to commune or anything;He gives it to us by His own volition.

 

4) Christianity is not even as spiritual as the vibrant tradition of Shaivism. With a few morals and a random desire to devote oneself to god, how can it pass off as Vaishnavism?

 

5) Jesus and Christianity is not mentioned in Sastra. To assume that Jesus was a Vaishnava therfore, is foolishness. It is quite plausible that the God of Christians is Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Indra or any deity other than Vishnu. One cannot make dangerous conclusions. Equating Vishnu with a Jiva is an offense.

 

6) Jesus is not a Shaktyavesa avatar. An avataric personality never gives ambiguous messages. He or She is always clear on all accounts.

 

7) The philosophy of Christianity (both gnostic and traditional) is not compatible with Vedic Philosophy. Hence, it is rejected.

 

Thus, Christianity is not Vaishnavism. Sentimentalists can worship Jesus for all I care. Their Karma.

[cbrahma]

 

*Sigh*. Doesn't it speak for itself?

 

Where is sastric evidence that says Jesus was a Vaishnava? Tell me, did Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya or anyone say Christianity is Vaishnavism?

 

 

Our acharyas have refuted a personal faith like Shaivism. How long do you think it would take for them to refute Christianity?

 

Why should any acharya even bother with an immature faith like Christianity?

 

Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism for the following reasons:

 

 

- The message is way too hazy and confusing.

 

- It is not even clear who the man Jesus was. Hence, to call him a Vaishnava is preposterous.

 

- Jesus did not even have my realisation of God. What makes him and other christian mystics Vaishnavas?

 

- It is NOT mentioned in our sastras anywhere that Christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism. But Sastras do warn us of other spurious faiths.

 

Jesus is often called a Saktyavesa avatar. This is refuted as follows:

 

- A shaktyavesa avatar either glorifies Sri Hari (Narada) or remains silent about God (Buddha). Jesus talked of a 'God', but he did not specify which God in the Vedic Pantheon he was talking about.

 

- A shaktyavesa avatar should atleast talk of the Vedas. Jesus doesn't mention it.

 

- Jesus is not even mentioned in texts. Now, Sri Hari can act independent of the sastras, but He never does, because He wishes people to place full faith in scriptures.

 

- The Bhagavatam mentions there are innumerable avatars. This does not mean there are unknown avatars, but rather pertains to the antaryami, the archa avatars and also the avatars of countless yugas. Not to Jesus.

 

Your blind belief is simply preventing you from realising that Christianity is not even as deep as Shaivism. Therfore, Christianity is not Vaishnavism.

You haven't given Sastric and authoritative support to a single one of your claims. They are wholesale assumptions that establish nothing except in your own sectarian mind. And don't try to turn the queston on itself. Nobody is asserting that Jesus is a Vaisnava. You are claiming that Vaisnavism and Christianity are incompatible. The burden of proof is on you. Saying that there is not evidence that he is, in insufficient proof of incompatibility.

[tackleberry]

 

You haven't given Sastric and authoritative support to a single one of your claims. They are wholesale assumptions that establish nothing except in your own sectarian mind. And don't try to turn the queston on itself. Nobody is asserting that Jesus is a Vaisnava. You are claiming that Vaisnavism and Christianity are incompatible. The burden of proof is on you. Saying that there is not evidence that he is, in insufficient proof of incompatibility.

Your question is similar to asking a person to prove his innocence, which isn't necessary at all. Such an approach will be met with censure and ridicule in the real world. Likewise, what you call 'incompatibility' requires no proof unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which means, it's up to you to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible, failing which we'll have to conclude that they aren't.

[shvu]

 

And don't try to turn the queston on itself. Nobody is asserting that Jesus is a Vaisnava.

 

Where have you been? The Jesus/Christian v. Vaishnavism topic came up on this forum by your buddies who posted threads with "Jesus is a Vaishnava" as a title. The identity of Jesus as a Vaishnava was a completely unfounded claim with absolutely no basis other than "Prabhupada said so".

 

The burden of proof is on the person who make the identity claim and clearly over several threads spanning several pages each the people who made this claim failed to provide any semblance of logic and instead engaged in ducking questions and tried to skirt the issue by attacking posters.

 

I can understand that the school dropouts here have a hard time understanding the concept of proof and logic. I assume you with your masters degrees will not have the same problem. Once again the burden of proof is on the person who tries t oestablish links between Christianity and Vaishnavism....not the other way around as you are trying to pass here.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Your question is similar to asking a person to prove his innocence, which isn't necessary at all. Such an approach will be met with censure and ridicule in the real world. Likewise, what you call 'incompatibility' requires no proof unless there's evidence to the contrary. Which means, it's up to you to substantiate your claims that Christianity and Vaishnavism are compatible, failing which we'll have to conclude that they aren't.

Not at all. That is a straw man.

It asking somebody to give justification for a baseless accusation, which in this case is that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism.

[tackleberry]

 

You haven't given Sastric and authoritative support to a single one of your claims.

Just a clarification. What do you mean by 'sastric support?' Are you expecting us to quote some verse in the veda that declares C to be incompatible with V? If so, you might want to violate traffic rules, because there's no explicit condemnation in the sastra. The same goes for many other illegal and unethical activities. Hopefully, you catch my drift.

[cbrahma]

 

Just a clarification. What do you mean by 'sastric support?' Are you expecting us to quote some verse in the veda that declares C to be incompatible with V? If so, you might want to violate traffic rules, because there's no explicit condemnation in the sastra. The same goes for many other illegal and unethical activities. Hopefully, you catch my drift.

I'm expecting an authoritative quote from sadhu sastra or guru that proves that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism. If there is then it would certainly contradict the quote I gave from Bhaktivinode Thakur

[theist]

 

The same goes for many other illegal and unethical activities. Hopefully, you catch my drift.

 

As if the teachings of Christ are illegal and unethical. Sheesh...what a crippled intelligence.

[cbrahma]

 

Where have you been? The Jesus/Christian v. Vaishnavism topic came up on this forum by your buddies who posted threads with "Jesus is a Vaishnava" as a title. The identity of Jesus as a Vaishnava was a completely unfounded claim with absolutely no basis other than "Prabhupada said so".

 

The burden of proof is on the person who make the identity claim and clearly over several threads spanning several pages each the people who made this claim failed to provide any semblance of logic and instead engaged in ducking questions and tried to skirt the issue by attacking posters.

 

I can understand that the school dropouts here have a hard time understanding the concept of proof and logic. I assume you with your masters degrees will not have the same problem. Once again the burden of proof is on the person who tries t oestablish links between Christianity and Vaishnavism....not the other way around as you are trying to pass here.

 

Cheers

I missed that one, or I would have responded. I did not make any assertions about the Vaisnava status of Jesus. I have only heard many times how Christianity and Vaisnavism are incompatible. THAT is the statement I challenge, and that is where the burden of proof lies.

[raghu]

 

The question of this thread is about the sastric and authoritative evidence that Christianity is incompatible with Vaisnavism.

 

There is no shAstric pramAna stating that "Christianity is incompatible with Vaishnavism." There is also a striking absence of explicit shAstric pramAna stating that Judaism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Islam is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Atheism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, Satanism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, terrorism is not compatible with Vaishnavism, ethnic-cleansing is not compatible with Vaishnavism, etc.

 

Then again, one does not need shAstric-pramAna to refute something that is obviously not correct. When one makes an outlandish claim, the logical burden of proof is on him (or her) to prove it, rather than insisting on proof by lack of explicit statements to the contrary.

 

We know what Vaishnavism is by reason of shrutis and smRtis. We know what the characteristics of these other religions and ideologies are by vritue of their respective literatures and histories. Intelligent people who are not motivated by blind faith are quite capable of making a dispassionate comparison of the two and noticing the incompatibility.

 

On several threads, the incompatibility of Christianity with Vaishnavism was discussed with explicit reference to Christian scripture, Christian beliefs, etc. In each case the presentation was so conclusive that the iskcon vaishnavas of this forum got so agitated and malicious that the moderators were forced to close those threads down. My sig file contained a list of insults that were hurled at me during those threads (before the moderators deleted it, that is) for bringing up these different evidences from Christianity.

 

Now, once again, we have the same pattern of iskconites pretending as if these discussions never happened, and wondering why any rational person cannot accept that christianity is compatible with Vaishnavism.

[tackleberry]

 

As if the teachings of Christ are illegal and unethical. Sheesh...what a crippled intelligence.

I didn't say that at all, it's your dubious method of inference. CB says there's no explicit condemnation of C in the veda and other shAstrA-s; and therefore, C must be valid. Then again, there's no explicit condemnation of many unethical activities in the veda. Does that mean we must consider them valid? Bottom line, a self-evident fact needs no extrinsic proof. Agama or scripture is necessary with respect to atIndriya vastu-s, objects beyond sense perception. But the present case is well established by pratyaksha, so where's the need for Agama, as CB insists?

[cbrahma]

 

I didn't say that at all, it's your dubious method of inference. CB says there's no explicit condemnation of C in the veda and other shAstrA-s; and therefore, C must be valid. Then again, there's no explicit condemnation of many unethical activities in the veda. Does that mean we must consider them valid? Bottom line, a self-evident fact needs no extrinsic proof. Agama or scripture is necessary with respect to atIndriya vastu-s, objects beyond sense perception. But the present case is well established by pratyaksha, so where's the need for Agama, as CB insists?

What a series of misquotes and false inferences.

 

CB says there's no explicit condemnation of C in the veda and other shAstrA-s; and therefore, C must be valid

Where did I say or imply any such thing?

The form is - if C is incompatible with GV then guru, sastra and sadhu would support that. Until there is such proof, one should not assert the incompatibility as though it were obvious.

 

Bottom line, a self-evident fact needs no extrinsic proof.

How is it self-evident? That is a convenient evasion. Again , if it were self-evident, pronouncements about its self-evidence would be found in guru, sastra and sadhu.

[supercow]

 

Where have you been? The Jesus/Christian v. Vaishnavism topic came up on this forum by your buddies who posted threads with "Jesus is a Vaishnava" as a title. The identity of Jesus as a Vaishnava was a completely unfounded claim with absolutely no basis other than "Prabhupada said so".

 

The burden of proof is on the person who make the identity claim and clearly over several threads spanning several pages each the people who made this claim failed to provide any semblance of logic and instead engaged in ducking questions and tried to skirt the issue by attacking posters.

 

I can understand that the school dropouts here have a hard time understanding the concept of proof and logic. I assume you with your masters degrees will not have the same problem. Once again the burden of proof is on the person who tries t oestablish links between Christianity and Vaishnavism....not the other way around as you are trying to pass here.

 

Cheers

 

Abs. no scholars who ever read the torah in aramaic or new testament in greek say or write jesus was a vaisnava. none.

 

even a jnana-yogi acknowledges a god (father) exists and much more. This knowledge does not make her/him a vaisnava.