Brahma is Christ

June 28, 2004

HARE KRISHNA

Iam really interested to know about the similarities

between the both the religions so pls mail those informations to me. My name is aishwarya lakshmi

aishu_vishu@.co.uk

August 5, 2004

dear friend, i have recently read both Bhagavata Puran, Vayu Mahapuran and Bible to find out the similarities. i have found several similarities between these myths. but it seems that a lot of extra things are given in Bhagavata and Vayu Mahapuran than those in Bible.

August 5, 2004

about what u said about chanting christ will not do the same if you chant hare krishna, prabhupada himself said that you may chant all the names of the lord. Christ's name comes from the greek word christos. the western word for krishna is christos.... prabhupada also said it was ok to chant christ or christos or krishna. the names are the same so you can chant any of them. here is the site that says it. prittaa dd wrote this. scroll down to the colum entitled the names are the same.

http://www.geocities.com/priitaa/christ_and_krishna

August 9, 2004

Prabhupada specifically said to him 'chant Krsna'...he then, as a compromise said 'if u have some sort of prejudice against Krsna, then chant Krsta or Christos'

the conclusion is that Krsna is still favourable to chant over Krstos...why?

A few reasons:

1) Krsna is non-different from the Absolute truth, wit the highest potency than any other name of God.

2) Even if Krsta refers to Krsna, one may not be chanting directly to Krsna, they may be chanting it and thinking of someone else, e.g. Jesus...

3) Even if Krsta/Christos is chanted sincerely, it is still another language, which is inferior to sanskrit, so the sound quality is not the same potency...

Having said that, the most important thing is the devotion with which one chants...

My point is that if one person was chanting Krsna, and the other was chanting Krstos, with equal sincerity, then the one chanting Krsna would get more spiritual benefit because of the potency of the name...

But if one has prejudice, please chant Krstos...

August 15, 2004

The christians pray that Lord Jesus is the only begotton son of the supreme Father. Lord Brahma is the only person born directly from the body of Lord Narayana.

Lord Brahma is the supreme mystic yogi among the created beings. He has perfected all the siddhis, including expanding himself up to eight times. When Lord Brahma incarnated to experiance Lord Chaitanyas pastimes, as Srila Haridas Thakur, Lord Brahma did not leave his post, nor His wife, Srimati Saraswati. Similarly, Lord Yamaraja still rides the buffalo with the diamond noose even while both Vidura and King Yudhisthira are assisting Lord Krsna in His pastimes.

None of this can be understood with the mind, however, I have no problem at all accepting that Lord Brahma and Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

August 15, 2004

Haribol, please see:

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET05-2620.html

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

August 16, 2004

maybe, but nobody has said so...the vedas predict jesus, but does not say that he is an incarnation of brahma...so do not make things up...

August 21, 2004

Haribol, you make it sound like speculation abounds. But if one says that Srila Prabhupada is shaktavesa avatar or Ramananda Raya is Arjuna, how is this different?

No, we recognize attributes. We recognize the Son of God to be Lord Brahma, and if the word "only" is there as describing Lord Jesus Christ, we see that Lord Brahma is the only being that sprouts from the form of Lord Narayana.

We recognize Mother Mary as having the name "Israel", which means the wife of God. The mother of the son is the wife of the father, therefore, we conclude that Mary is none other that Mother Laxmi, and Srila Prabhupada has confirmed. So we see that Laxmi is massaging Lord Narayana, who has Lord Brahma attached to the lotus that springs from Him, why is it such a stretch to say that he and Lord Jesus are the same.

Not life and death here, no one criticized the author of gaura ganodesa dapika for drawing similarities between persons of Krsna lila and chaitanya lila, nor does anyone shout "offender" to the vaisnava acarya declares that Prahlada is not the same as depicted by Gaura ganodesa dapika. Talks like these are meant to bring appreciation for the vaisnavas, and though there may be imperfections, there is also appreciation for the sane. (See SB canto one, talks between Vyasadeva and Narada)

Dont get too worked up over this, a new religion opposed to Vaisnavism is not being made up here. I could speak about the unfathomable comparisons between Haridas thakur (generally accepted as Lord Brahma by Gaudiya Vaisnavas) and Lord Jesus, but there are too many folks who dont want to speak or hear for pleasurable thought possibilities, looking for faults in presentations, so I did not bother.

Hare Krsna, have a nice day, ys, mahaksadasa

August 22, 2004

2) Even if Krsta refers to Krsna, one may not be chanting directly to Krsna, they may be chanting it and thinking of someone else, e.g. Jesus...

Yahshua the mashiyach (messiah) is "Jesus Christ's" real name. Christos is greek translation of messiah. It means the anointed one, not all attractive or dark/black. Yahshua is not greek. He does not call his father Christos/Krista.

August 22, 2004

Haribol. There are many descriptions of Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the son of man, christ is the son of gode. Both terms are descriptions of a person given the name Emmanuel ben Yusif at birth, but like even the lowliest human, many names come after. The fact that he is now known as Jesus Christ is not a qualification nor disqualification.

When he refers to the Father, he says Abhaya, He refers to the same "He who sent me" as "elahoi", which means friend. Preaching from the rabbinical scrolls he used to teach, mainly Isaiah and even books no longer included in that compilation known as the bible, He used the word Jahoviah, Yahweha, etc.

Krsna has invested transcendental potency in everything about himself, His Names, fame, pastimes, paraphenalia, and associates. To chant "Jesus Christ", while it may not be on a par with "Krsna, Govinda, Madhannamohana", is also potent, and can only help one attain the ultimate goal of remembering ones identity and acting accordingly.

I have never met a Gaudiya Vaisnava who objects to one chanting "Sita Rama" or other Names depicting pastimes of the supreme Lord outside the lila of Gokula dhama. Perhaps one fully fixed up in madurya rasa may not care for names of the supreme lord that do not remind of the love of life, there is no objection.

So, chant papa dio, chant prabhupada, chant hare krsna, chant gaura nitai, they are all eternally associated, and ones lifde will be perfect by the utterances of such holy names.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

August 23, 2004

Abhaya? I thought Yahshua used the aramaic word ABBA for father, or is it the same word?

It's interesting that in Tamil APPA is the word for father and in Shaiva SIddhanta one of the ways of approaching god is as a father (not a way to approach Krishna). So if someone wants to make a connection between Yahshua and hinduism here's a possibility. Maybe, maybe not.

But definitely no connection between Krishna and the messiah (christos) His father's name is not "the messiah", but in his father's name Yahveh, Yahshua saves.

August 23, 2004

Haribol. You are incorrect when you note that to approach Krsna as father is not proper. One of the five rasas is servitude, as a son serves a father. Lord Jesus emphasized this rasa, as well as the rasa of friendship.

ABBA is the same word, abhaya is from the Kebra Nagast, meaning the same thing, as described by Gabriel to his disciples, King Solomon and Queen Mekeda.

Srila Prabhupada affirms that Lord Jesus worship of Krsna as the Supreme Father is Vaisnavism. The christians who merge the father with the son by calling them the same being, not knowing the acintya bedha bheda tattwa as taught by Lord Jesus, practice a sort of santa rasa, merging with the supreme lord, and this rasa is neglected and unwanted by the vaisnava.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

August 23, 2004

"You are incorrect when you note that to approach Krsna as father is not proper"

"Srila Prabhupada affirms that Lord Jesus worship of Krsna as the Supreme Father is Vaisnavism"

Proper siddhanta, very good. Krishna is father, Radha mother. Excellent.

August 24, 2004

1) Prabhupada confirmed that Jesus was saktiavesa avatara. The son of God has plenty of meanings. We cannot say what is the real meaning that Jesus intended:

a) Son of God, as in directly born of God - in which case, Brahma is one possibility...however, Krishna had many sons, Pradyumna, Samba etc...why conclude that Brahma is Christ?

b) son of God, as in we are all sons of God...the reason I would emphasis this is because Prabhupada said, 'Jesus CLAIMED to be the son of God...actually we are all sons of God'...in other words this is a generic term to mean all the souls that exist are sons of God...

It would be unwise to make a conclusion that Jesus is Brahma, and it would also be unwise to make the other conclusion that Jesus is just another son of God like all of us...only a truely accurate analysis of the original Bible without all these other interpolations would settle the argument...

August 24, 2004

Mahaksadasa,

you say that Christ may be Brahma, and u say that chanting Jesus Christ is perfectly alright...

However, would Gaudiya Vaishnavas recommend the chanting of Brahma's name...especially on beads?

...the only way chanting of Brahma would be accepted is if it was in the mood to ask Brahma to direct us to Krishna...

...hence chanting Jesus Christ as the Supreme Lord is not recommended...instead chant his name to ask for direction to his father, God...

Prabhupada specifically said to Christians to chant Krstos...and thats if they had a prejudice against chanting Krsna...He said that because Krstos sounds like Krsna, and also he thought Krstos's was similar to the sanskrit word Krsta - which means all-attractive ...hence ultimately refers to Krishna and has the potency of Krsna's name...

As for the legitimacy of the rasas, serving Krishna as father is in the style of a master-servant relationship, with Krsna being master...

Unfortunately, Christians have tended to misuse the father-son relationship to mean that they can do 'what they like, since we are all sons of God, so he will accept us no matter how sinful we've been'...Thus Christians tend to look at it the opposite way, almost like God is a servant looking after his children 24/7...

September 15, 2004

Brahma is a position, not a person! It says so very clearly in the Bhagavatam. There is a Brahma for each universe and heaps of universes!

Why does it matter anyway who Jesus was? Guessing or drawing conclusions won't help.

September 17, 2004

Hare Krishna,

Chaturmukha BrahmA does not and will not take any avatar. So the whole post on this wild speculation is completely wrong.

September 18, 2004

JEZ US & TRUTH

FR*OM* 'T*I'me* to Time*

travel into galaXY & try to bring US

AL(L) on EartH...

If You think better... You'll find

LOVE inside Y(our)se*lf ...

September 20, 2004

The Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon tell of a story of a Jesus who had a premortal existance as Brahma. In the Sri Brahma-Samhita purports by His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Thakura Text 49, It tells of an instance that when Brahma is liberated in a previous kalpa, Krishna selects an eligible jiva/soul to ACT in the office of Brahma. This jiva is then infused with the Lord becoming one with him. This acting Brahma gains the nature of the avatara of the Divinity. This is why many believe that Jesus is an avatara. So Jesus is not Brahma, he is an acting Brahma as I AM of the Holy Bible, he is not avatara he gained the nature of avatara when he was infused by the Lord.

September 22, 2004

Jesus in the office of Brahma and infused with the Lord gaining the nature of Avatara; (being in the image of God) felt it not a crime to be EQUAL with God. Although Jesus felt EQUAL to God he was still subserviant to God. God is everything and everything is God. Because of this the law of the Old Testament says, ye are all gods. Although Jesus and all of us are gods (being God as a part of everything), we as jiva/souls are still subserviant to GOD. It is said that all worship is meant for the supreme personality of God. Jesus understood this and prayed to the father (he who sits on the throne, Govinda/Krishna). When Jesus said, when you see me you see the father, he meant that he had the nature of avatara and in possession of that nature the image of Krishna. When Jesus said he and the father was one, he meant that he had been infused by the Lord in his premortal existance as acting Brahma. Jesus' disciples called him the Christ because he had the nature of avatara, and they called him the firstborn of all creation because he was acting Brahma. But Jesus was not avatara and he was not Brahma, he was a jiva/soul who felt it not a crime to be Equal with God being in the image of God.

shmuel · October 23, 2004

I remember Parbupada saying that jesus went to the heavenly planets at the time of death. that he did not go back to Krnas Loka.

shmuel · October 23, 2004

gos is everything but everything is not god. this must be understood.

if the fact that god is everything (sri isopanishad) inside of everythinmg and simutaneously outisde of everything - must be understood - one and different.

if everything was god than we could worship dog stool. now we can worship krnas' stool. and if you were fortunate to be in the vicinity (Vrindaban - Krna Loka) you could smear it on your body. it has a beautiful fragrance. BUT you cannot do the same with human stool or dog stool.

so it is god's energy. so god is the dog stool. BUT the dog stool is NOT God. that is nonsenseical philosophy. inconceivably everything is not god even though god is everything.

Imagine. go to a church and claiming that it is worshipable put some dog stool up on the altar and proclaim that everything is God. you see? who will be attracted? it has no attractive qualities unless you are a dog or a low birth worm, neither of which is god and neither are you or I while we're on the sublect.

jai Krsna. all glories to Srila Prabupada. hey if you think Jesus is cool, what about Pralada Maharaja? way cool!

imported_Sanjay · January 18, 2005

The Bible, the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, and complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ--Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

The Holy Spirit--The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and during this age, to convict men of sin, regenerate the believing sinner, indwell, guide, instruct, and empower the believer for godly living and service.

Man--Man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is therefore lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.

Salvation--The shed blood of Jesus Christ and His resurrection provide the only ground for justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ by faith are born of the Holy Spirit and thus become children of God.

The Return of Jesus Christ--The personal, premillenial, and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ is our hope and has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.

Future Events--There will be a bodily resurrection of all the dead; of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord, and of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting conscious punishment.

The Church--The true Church is composed of all such persons, who through saving faith in Jesus Christ, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the body of Christ of which He is the head.

Baptism and Communion--Water baptism by immersion soon after accepting Christ as personal Savior, is a testimony of death to sin and resurrection to a new life and the Lord's Supper is a memorial service setting forth in sacred and symbolic manner the death of the Lord Jesus Christ; all true believers and only believers should share in it.

imported_Sanjay · January 18, 2005