[Jagannath] Lord Caitanya

March 3, 2000

> Whether or not Chaithanya is an avatar, we can worship him. Indian> culture/tradition> allows us to believe in some one and look him as Lord. aadi sankara is> also supposed> to be an incarnation of lord Siva. Whether or not we accept it, we can> still look him as our teacher and follow him. A King and Teacher and> Mother are given the place of> lord traditionally.

If I remember correctly physical mother, nursing mother, guru's wife, brahmana's wife, earth, cow and Vedas are considered to be ones mother. Does it means that we can say that each of these 7 mothers gave us birth? So if I go to my mother and tell her that she is not my mother, but cow is my mother, I think that she would start to think that I am ready for a long visit to specialized mental institution.What it means is that mother gives us birth, nursing mother gives us breast milk if our own mother is not able to do so, Guru is considered as father because he gives us knowledge, so his wife we should respect as our own mother, brahmins are the head of society and they are also teachers, so to their wives is given respect like to ones mother, earth gives us food (grains, fruit, vegetables), cow gives us milk till the rest of our life after our mother cannot do it and Vedas give us knowledge about who are we, therefore all of these have function of mother one way or the other, but there is only one person who gave us birth and we cannot say that all 7 of them are all our mothers in the same sense.

Adi Shankara or Shankaracarya is if I am correct partial incarnation of Lord Shiva as mentioned in Shiva Purana and his mission was to bring people back to teachings of Vedas (through preaching of impersonal (mayavada) philosophy) from Budism that was widely spread in India at that time. Now you cannot say that any king, teacher or mother is the Adi Shankara mentioned in Shiva Purana or they can be considered to be one just because it is said that that to a King, teacher and mother are given the place of lord traditionally.I don't see any logic there. There is only one person and none else who did work predicted in Siva Purana and that is a historical fact, not just a matter of belief. So it was predicted that Lord Shiva will come as Adi Shankara for certain purpose at certain time, and it happened, and you are trying to say that it is only question of belief if Lord Shiva really incarnated as Adi Shankara or not.

> Vedas/Puranas may talk about a future incarnation. But, it is always> debatable who> is that. For example, if a purana says there will be an incarnation in> form of a great sain who is black, we will have lots of great saints who> are black. It got to be one of them. Followers of each will claim that> thier modal is the incarnation.

Not necessarily, from what I red in Srimad Bhagavatam and other Vedic literatures, they are usually very precise, for example for Kalki avatar that is supposed to come in about 427 000 years it is mentioned name of the village where He will appear, names of His mother and father and mission of that avatar. So with all these information I don't think that you can just mistake anyone or category of people with one or more similar characteristics to be an avatar. Even if on physical level there is some similarity, still there is a mission of particular avatar which is beyond human capacity so from there it is easy to distinguish who is who.For example even ordinary mortals (not avatars of God) are also predicted in Puranas like in case of Chanakya Pandit. This is what was written about him in Vishnu Purana (similar prophecies are also repeated in the Bhagavata, Vayu and Matsya Puranas):

"(First) Mahapadma then his sons - only nine in number - will be the lords of the earth for a hundred years. A brahmana named Kautilya will slay these Nandas. On their death, the Mauryas will enjoy the earth. Kautilya himself will install Chandragupta on the throne. His son will be Bindusara and his son will be Ashokavardhana."

> So, while I accept you view (I have nothing againt Chaitanya prabhu), I> do not see much point in attempts to convince others. It is just a> matter of belief. We may possibly not be able to prove it.

Do you still think that like in example of Chanakya Pandit, any brahmin or anyone called Kautilya could claim that he is Chanakya Pandit and that it is just question of belief who do we consider to be Chanakya Pandit? Chanakya Pandit had a mission to accomplish after his birth that was predicted long before he even took birth, which he accomplished and that is what distinguishes him from even his brothers who also were born at similar time, from same parents at same place, but they didn't do what he did. He installed king Chandragupta on the throne who successfully fought invaders and he kicked them out from Indian subcontinent. History can prove who is a bona fine avatar and who is pretender. If it is just a matter or belief that means that this event with Chandragupta's installation on throne happened by an accident and it happened that some brahman called Kautilya was instrumental in it, but only if we believe he was predicted otherwise he wasn't. What logic is that?If it is just matter of belief than Lord Jagannatha is also form of Krishna, that means only if you believe that Jagannath is form of Krishna only than He is, otherwise he is just a wooden statue without any particular meaning. Since we in material realm by scientific means we cannot prove that God exists that means that Lord Jagannatha also doesn't exist, if Lord Jagannatha doesn't exist that all Vedic knowledge must me concocted by some people and all of us in Sri Jagannatha Vedic Center are just wasting our time. What you are saying is that if you believe in it than only these things may be true, otherwise not. Again where is the logic there? It is like saying that only if you believe that Hitler was responsible for killing so many people than it is true, but if you don't believe in it than maybe he never existed and 2nd world war never happened, it just mythology.

> No hard feelings. I am not against saying Chaitanya prabhu is an> incarnation.

I am talking in general, not only about Lord Chaitanya, even if there were many people born around His time, looked exactly like Him, only Lord Caitanya propagated chanting and spreading of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra, only He gave predictions that chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra will spread in every town and village which gradually is coming through. Lord Chaitanya gave prediction that His General ("sena pati" - leader of army) will spread chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra all around the world. That was recorded in the book called "Chaitanya Mangala" by Locan Dasa Thakur around 500 years ago. Now anyone could claim that he was Lord Caitanya's general before the prediction was fulfilled, but it was only one person who did it, so how anyone else can claim that is Lord Caitanya's general after the prediction is fulfilled? Does it also mean that if we don't believe in Lord Caitanya that His prediction never happened and that chanting of Hare Krishna Maha Mantra never spread outside of India?

There is always a mission behind any avatar or any personality predicted in Vedas or Puranas or books related to them. It is the mission stated for every of them that makes the difference. Even in the hypothetical case that you wrote:

" For example, if a purana says there will be an incarnation in> form of a great saint who is black, we will have lots of great saints who> are black. It got to be one of them. Followers of each will claim that> their modal is the incarnation."

So even if there are millions of saints that are black only one will fulfill the mission that is also part of why that saint took birth on this planet and it is part of the prediction. So only one "black saint" will fulfill that what was predicted in the prediction that talks about His particular case. So million people may claim that they have been all predicted, but only one among them will fulfill the prophecy from particular Veda or Purana and that is what makes the difference. If they would not have any mission than there would not be reason for any avatars or saints to appear and especially to be part of the prophecy of Vedas or Puranas.

To sum it up from what I have red so far my conclusion is that for every avatar of God or any personality that is predicted in the Vedas, Puranas or Upanishads or other books related to them apart from name or whatever else is mentioned there must me a mission that concerned person will accomplish after his birth and the mission of that person is what makes him a part of the prophecy and it confirms it.

Basically we have to differentiate truth from untruth and reality from unreality.

Please think about this and don't take it personally. If you have any more arguments we can debate about them.

Hare Krishna,

Dina-natha Das.