The Burning Cross

[Guest guest]

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0312/ET22-8486.html

 

The Burning Cross

 

BY PRADEEP SHARMA

 

EDITORIAL, Dec 22 (VNN) — In one of my last visits to an ISKCON temple I was engaged in a conversation with a disciple of Shrila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada about inter-faith dialogue, particularly about dialogue with Christians and incorporating Christian thought and spiritual practices into Krishna consciousness. I was respectful, as my position naturally demands when in the presence of a senior devotee, but at the same time I found that I was becoming quite annoyed with the conversation. My academic training as a historian kept ringing in my ear and I began to wonder what is it that the followers of the doctrine of Divine Love presented by Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu could possibly want to gain from an inter-faith dialogue with Christianity? Not much if anything, I thought.

 

Although Christianity has succeeded in pulling the blanket of deception over the eyes of the world with the fable of Jesus, should not the Vaishnavas know better and see through such fraud and deception?

 

In the last few weeks I have come to understand that most Gaudiya Vaishnavas today (Indian and Western) have very little knowledge of the history of Christianity, it origins, and its activities in the present.

 

Christianity, as we know it, is an offshoot of Judaism that began in 35 AD circa under the ministry of Paul and later gained significant political power under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century.

 

In the first years after Jesus, he was considered a man, a human, who like many others before him and during his time had come to fulfill the messianic prophecy of leading the Jewish people out of political bondage. Paul however insisted on deifying Jesus and preached that Jesus was the son of God or God Himself.

 

Prior to Paul, the concept of Jesus as more than a human being was not prevalent among the original Apostles. Paul also wanted to preach to gentiles (non-Jews) whereas Jesus himself had supposedly said that he came for the Jewish people only and this was being followed by the original Apostles of Jesus until Paul entered the scene. Paul eventually went against the laws of Moses and preached that one need not follow them. Thus he was to be reprimanded by the Apostles and in an act of rebellion he established his own cult that later came to be the standard of Christianity. Paul's doctrine placed faith above works. This means that according to Paul there is no need to follow Jewish law, one only has to believe in Jesus. Since that time Christianity has been a doctrine of salvation through Jesus - not a search for truth, knowledge, or a method of attaining truth or knowledge of God other than through Jesus.

 

It should also be mentioned that the early Christians did not call themselves "Christians". They were in fact a minority within the Jewish community who went by the name Nazarenes' and who thought that Jesus was the messiah of the Jews, or the Christ, but they did not call themselves Christian' until the time of Paul.

 

You can ask any Jewish scholar and he will tell you that Jesus (if he existed at all) was a Jew who strictly adhered to the laws of Moses and that Christian doctrine is a Jewish heresy that originated with Paul in Asia Minor in 35 AD.

 

The Jews themselves derived much of their doctrine from the Zoroastrians, as they lived under a Zoroastrian theocracy in Babylonia for nearly two centuries. The Zoroastrians as it were are a renegade cult of Brahmins led by Zoroaster who, not accepting defeat before Rsi Vasistha, fled India in ancient times and established their own monotheistic codes of religion, namely Zoroastrianism, the worship of Ahura Mazda and Mithras. The origins of Zoroastrianism are documented in the Rg Veda, verses 7.1.7, 7.9.6, 10.80.3 and the Bhavisya Purana, Pratisarga Khanda, Ch. 129-130. Rsi Vasistha is also mentioned in the Zoroastrian scripture the Zend Avesta.

 

From the time of Rsi Vasistha to the Zoroastrians of Persia, to the Jews in the pre-Christian era, there are various historical references that establish the authenticity of their cults and their founders, but when we enter the Christian Era' there is no confirmable authority to establish that the historical Jesus ever existed. The fact that Jesus ever existed has never been verified by any historical accounts, either church or secular. It is indeed very strange that no historical records of Jesus exist when we consider that Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was a haven for historians and scribes. Although the Bible (compiled centuries after Jesus and the main record of Jesus' life) speaks of thousands of people following Jesus, such events are not mentioned in any of the old records of Jerusalem, either ethnic or Roman.

 

In the words of Pope Leo X of the 16th century, "How profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and our company." To this day there is still no proof of an historical Jesus. Strictly speaking Jesus still remains a cult fable. Thus the centuries old following of Jesus derives no more spiritual benefit than the modern following of Ayyappa in Kerala. Neither of these personalities, Ayyappa (mentioned nowhere in Vedic or Puranic literature) or Jesus (mentioned nowhere in Jewish or Roman literature), actually existed. Despite people having faith in these nonexistent cult personalities, no spiritual benefit is achieved because faith must be placed in reality and not in hearsay or myth.

 

For want of an actual Jesus and any sermons or miracles preformed by him, it turns out that all aspects of the Christian doctrine have been borrowed from either the Jews, the Zoroastrians, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and even the Vaishnavas. This is verifiable on each and every point of the Christian doctrine and legacy of Jesus from the numbers of disciples that Jesus had to each and every sermon that he gave or miracle he allegedly performed. Virtually nothing about Christianity is original or authentic.

 

It is all a fabrication of bits and pieces of other cultural and spiritual traditions borrowed from here and there. What then have the devotees of Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to learn from the so-called Christians other than the unwanted art of politics and deception? (for more information see; www.askwhy.co.uk)

 

In the 19th/20th centuries there was an international debate amongst scholars called "The Borrowing Theory.The Borrowing Theory suggested that the worship of Vasudeva Krishna was borrowed from Christianity. The Brahmins of India had little to contribute to this debate but thanks to the honest research of a small group of western archeologists and historians, the matter was finally settled in 1908 that the worship of Vasudeva Krishna predated the worship of Jesus at which point the topic of "The Borrowing Theory" was abandoned.

 

Many similarities between Vaishnavism and Christianity were discovered during the era of The Borrowing Theory with a view to establish Christianity as the roots of Vaishnavaism, but when the attempt failed no one took up the opposing view to suggest that possibly it was Christianity who borrowed from Vaishnavaism. When indeed it had. (for more information see: www.atributetohinduism.com/dwaraka)

 

No one in India presented the challenge to the world's intellectual community because as Aurobindo once said, "The Indians have forgotten how to think."

 

An interesting point to remember about Christianity is that although we hear that it is a doctrine of love and mercy taught by their savior, there is actually no point in Christian history or place in Christendom where an example of love and mercy was ever shown. On the contrary, from the birth of Christianity until the present day the Christians have left a trail of bloodshed and horror wherever they have gone in the world.

 

Of course history says that the early Christians were themselves persecuted by the Romans for their political activities (not for their religious beliefs), but when the tables had turned and the Christians rose to power, they wasted no time in persecuting everyone and anyone who differed with Christian doctrine - even members of their own community.

 

When Christianity had purged the Roman Empire of what they called pagan practices (many of which had Vedic origins) Europe entered the Dark Ages' and remained in such darkness until Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appeared in India in 1486 which eventually caused a Renaissance in Europe wherein came the rise of the Protestant Church. Unfortunately the Protestants did no better than their forerunners.

 

The Christian trail of bloodshed and horror began from the time of Emperor Constantinus, the son of Emperor Constantine, when numerous "Christian" minorities were tortured and put to death for their beliefs in reincarnation and vegetarianism (doctrines borrowed from the East). The trail of bloodshed and horror has continued unabated throughout the Christian world until modern times. In 1560 AD the Inquisition began in India on the direct order of St. Francis Xavier and continued until 1812 AD. The Inquisition however had ended thirty-eight years earlier in Europe. During that time more than 2000 people were burned at the stake in India and all in the name of the cross. Sadly the Inquisition in India is a part of history that India's secular education (heavily influenced by Christianity) refuses to acknowledge.

 

During the period of Portuguese occupation in India the myth of St. Thomas also gained popularity.

 

According to legend, St. Thomas the Apostle landed in India in 52 AD at Cranganore on the Malabar Coast and established the first church later known as the Syrian Church. In 68 AD St. Thomas was allegedly martyred near modern day Chennai / Madras and a large cathedral there now houses a basement crypt containing the relics of St. Thomas. This story of St. Thomas in India, however, has no verification or certification from the Vatican in Rome, but is nonetheless a powerful preaching platform when converting Hindus to Christianity, either Catholic or Protestant. (for more information see: www.hamsa.org)

 

In the cathedral of St. Thomas at Chennai (Santhome Cathedral Basilica) there is also a painting that shows St. Thomas praying while he is being stabbed to death with a lance weilded by a Ramanuja Vaishnava Brahmin wearing Vishnu tilak. Once again we find that our Brahmins in India are sitting idle and not thinking or saying anything about this false propaganda which suggests that St. Thomas was killed by a Shree Vaishnava. In fact the Shree Vaishnavas and their tilak did not come into history until the 11th century AD.

 

This, and other Christian propaganda that are based on lies and falsehood, have gone unopposed throughout the world for twenty centuries. The result of which is that a major portion of the world population, and even a large population here in India, is now under the influence of the Christian heresy. When we see bona fide Vaishnavas also falling victim to this heresy it is indeed disappointing.

 

The Christian churches have a hundred year plan to convert all of India and other parts of Asia to Christianity. To this end the Christians already control a large number of educational institutions in India and also have a powerful control over the Indian media. At present there are 24 million Christians in India. One third of the population of Goa is Christian. One fourth of Kerala is Christian and Christianity is the majority in the states of Nagaland and Mizoram in the North East. Half the Christians in India belong to the Roman Catholic Church and the balance belong to various Protestant Churches.

 

What appears to be happening is that in the name of inter-faith dialogue the less-informed devotees are unwittingly playing into the hands of a modern Christian crusade against Vaishnavism.

 

In any productive dialogue with a Christian it should be firmly demonstrated that any teaching of value found in Christianity is already there within the teachings of Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu with the added advantage that the teachings of Mahaprabhu are much more extensive and direct.

 

Unfortunately, the Brahmins of India have for the most part become spiritual eunuchs and are useless for such purposes as propagating, defending, or even maintaining Vedic culture while their counterparts, the western Vaishnava communities, in the name of preaching widely, are becoming more and more diluted by mixing everything and anything (such as Christianity and Buddhism, etc ) with Krishna consciousness. If this trend continues then unfortunately the western Vaishnava communities may eventually become no more useful for the Sankirtan Movement of Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu than our impotent Brahmins of India.

[Guest guest]

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0312/ET29-8494.html

 

The Burning Cross (Part 2)

 

BY PRADEEP SHARMA

 

EDITORIAL, Dec 29 (VNN) — Since my last article The Burning Cross (part 1) appeared on VNN some readers have requested me to write more on the history of Christianity in their crusade against Vaishnavism in India and elsewhere.

 

The systematic slander and crusade against Vaishnavism seems to have begun immediately after the arrival of the Portuguese and Christian (Catholic) missionaries in India (Goa/Kerala) almost five centuries ago and has to one degree or another persisted up to the present day.

 

The fall of the Viyajnagar Empire to the Muslim invaders shortly after the arrival of the Portuguese in Goa left much of the coastal regions in the south without a strong Hindu Protector. Thus the Portuguese/Christian conquest in Goa went largely unopposed until the British Raja came to power in India and the Portuguese military eventually withdrew leaving only the Church behind.

 

The Goan Inquisition was the bloody inauguration of what has been a 500 year slander and crusade against Vaishnavism, which now reaches many distant corners of the world. It is recorded and admitted by 'Saint' Xavier (a Jesuit Priest) in his letters that he personally insisted that his monarch Dom Joao of Portugal dispatch the Inquisition to India. During this time the figure of a Vaishnava and their shrines were not so distinguishable to the uneducated eye of the Portuguese and so the Inquisition focused on Brahmanism in general and not particularly on Vaishnavism. After starting the Inquisition, Xavier departed for Japan and did not stay in Goa to see the bloodshed and suffering that he caused.

 

Not able to withstand the horrors of the Portuguese/Christian conquest in Goa thousands of Gaura Saraswata Vaishnava Brahmins made a mass exodus at that time and resettled in Dakshin Kanada (Karnataka) to the south. These Gaura Saraswata Brahmins from Goa who settled in Karnataka were the forefathers of Rupa and Sanatana Goswamis.

 

After sometime the Protestant Churches also joined the crusade against everything Indian or Vedic, with a particular scorn for Lord Jagannatha at Puri. The Protestant Reverends of the times, such as Rev.

 

Claudius Buchanan (1813), considered Jagannatha as a morbid God of death with a bloodthirsty smile. These missionaries and Christian travelers in India created a gross misrepresentation of the sect of Jagannatha and spread their maliciousness throughout the Christian world in their writings.

 

Rev. Claudius Buchanan wrote, From Surat to this place (Jagannatha Puri, a distance of not less than 3,000 kilometers), all the highway was stowed with dead people, our noses never free from the stink of them. Women were seen to roast their children. A man or woman no sooner dead but they were cut in pieces to be eaten.

 

I have seen Juggernaut. The scene at Bhadrak is but the vestibule of Juggernaut. No record of ancient or modern history can give, I think, an adequate idea of this Valley of Death; it may be truly compared with the Valley of Hinnom (a place in Israel where human child sacrifices were performed before the god Moloch). The idol called Juggernaut has been considered as the Moloch of the present age; and he is justly so named, for the sacrifices offered up to him by self-devotement are not less criminal, perhaps not less numerous, than those recorded of the Moloch of Canaan (Canaan was the state and Hinnom the city for human child sacrifices).

 

The senses are assailed by the squalid and ghastly appearance of the famished pilgrims; many of whom die in the streets of want or disease; while the devotees, with clotted hair and painted flesh, are seen practicing their various austerities, and modes of self-torture. Persons of both sexes, with little regard to concealment, sit down on the sands, close to the town in public view; and the sacred bulls walk about among them and eat the ordure (stool).

 

The idol is a block of wood, having a frightful visage painted black, with a distended mouth of a bloody colour. The characteristics of Moloch's worship are obscenity and blood. (From the diary of Rev. Claudius Buchanan)

 

Robert Southey (1809) wrote in Curse of Kehama" (XIV 5) a scornful poem about Lord Jagannatha to the delight of his Christian readers.

 

The ponderous car rolls on and crushes all, Through flesh and bones it ploughs its dreadful path. Groans rise unheard; the dying cry and death and agony. Are trodden under foot by your mad throng. Who follow close and thrust the deadly wheels along.

 

The Christian crusade against Jagannatha was summed up by J. Peggs in his book A History of the General Baptist Mission, London, 1846 as follows.

 

Juggernaut, the great, the obscene, the bloody Juggernaut, must fall; Long perhaps will be the struggle and fierce the conflict but he must fall; and the place which knows him now will know him no more for ever."

 

These exaggerated and scornful criticisms of Jagannatha were intended to stir the emotions of a Christian population in Europe grown complacent to missionary activities of the Church. The Church was in need of fresh recruits (missionaries) and the obvious financial support needed to carry out missionary activities. These scornful criticisms were also intended to shame the Hindu population.

 

To this day, missionary activities of the Church are still going on in Orrissa aimed at undoing the worship of Jagannatha and decrying the Vaishnavas and their creed.

 

No more clear and unbiased evidence of the Christian (Catholic) lack of tolerance and utter hatred for any form of religion other than their own is shown in the Jesuit Oath. This oath, from 16th century circa, is still uttered in Latin by those men who take to the robes of the Jesuit order in modern times. The oath clearly reveals the evil commitment of their creed and curiously enough even mentions India. An excerpt from that oath follows.

 

I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver, but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

 

That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

 

I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard (dagger) or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

 

The Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are indeed deeply divided as the above oath clearly suggests. Both parties are quick to persecute (kill, murder and torture) each other and even members of their own faith, what to speak of a person (man, woman, or child) of a foreign faith.

 

We have God to thank for secular governments who guarantee freedom of faith; otherwise anyone non-Christian in this world would soon be hung, boiled, flayed, strangled, buried alive, stomachs and wombs ripped up, or have their infants' heads crushed against the walls.

 

This raises a very interesting point. The United States of America (a secular government) is perhaps the single greatest refuge or sanctuary for religious freedom in the world. This is because the constitution of that country guarantees freedom of religion to people of all faiths. Ironically America is seen to be a Christian country and most people believe it always has been. This however is not a fact.

 

The United States of America only gradually became a dominantly Christian country, after its inception. The founding fathers of that great country were in fact trying to escape Christian oppression (both Catholic and Protestant) in Europe and even though many were Christians themselves, they wanted above all to guarantee religious freedom to others. They felt that without freedom of choice a person could not have real faith or religion - a point that all deep thinkers of our day will surely concur.

 

Many of those founding forefathers of America were Deists and not Christians. Deism is a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. These Deists had a great influence over the making of the United States Constitution, a document considered to be one of the most enlightened political statements ever written.

 

The founders of the United States rarely practiced what today we might call Christianity. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in Deism, and many attended Freemasonry lodges. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, and even Lafayette, and many others accepted the Freemasonry order.

 

The American forefathers' distain for Christianity, in uncompromising words, is quite clear from their many statements and letters.

 

Thomas Paine (Statesman/Author) states; "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

 

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and contradictory or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."

 

Benjamin Franklin states; "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."

 

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England (USA)."

 

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

 

Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declarat ion of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom) states;

 

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites - to support roguery and error all over the earth. I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

 

"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse (Revelations), and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."

 

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

 

"We discover in the Gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."

 

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

 

It is interesting to note that in his autobiography Thomas Jefferson also made a specific mention of the Hindoo (as well as others), assuring them their religious freedom in the United States. Jefferson wrote in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom as follows: "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." (Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson Writings, Library of America, 1984)

 

James Madison (Considered the father of the American Constitution) states;

 

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

 

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." (1803 letter objecting to the use of government land for churches)

 

John Adams states; "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816)

 

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" (letter to Thomas Jefferson)

 

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

 

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

 

"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds (Christianity) that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years? (Now for 2000 years)"

 

George Washington the father of the United States was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason. Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

 

Paul F. Boller states in his anthology on George Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]

 

After George Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion, "Sir, Washington was a Deist." (John E. Remsburg, Six Historic Americans (New York: Truth Seeker Co.).

 

The fact that the United States was never really intended to be a Christian country is further demonstrated in a little-known legal document written in the late 1700s circa that explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States. Officially called the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," it was commonly referred to as the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article eleven it states: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussel men; and as the said States never have entered in any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, docs. 1-40: 1776-1818. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931).

 

Again I say thank God for secular government and men and women who can tolerate the faith of another human being. This is a luxury available in few countries of the world. India, the United States and the United Kingdom are on that list but not all of Europe or Russia, what to speak of Islamic countries, none of which have such freedoms. There, the crusade against Vaishnavism raises its head again and again.

 

Recent reports from Russia and Poland concur that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are attempting to minimize the activities of devotees (Hare Krishnas) in every way. And in Uzbekistan the Islamic government has recently closed down the Hare Krishna temple.

 

In the United States the Baptist Church recently distributed pamphlets in America making outrageous and offensive statements about Hinduism (of which they consider the Hare Krishna's a part). When asked to make an apology to the Hindu community, the Church showed no signs of genuine remorse. Similar activities of the Church are also going on at this very moment in India. Therefore all that is required for the crusade against Vaishnavism to be successful is for devotees to stand by and say nothing.

 

In the third and final part of The Burning Cross I will answer a variety of questions on these topics that I have received from devotees around the world.

[Guest guest]

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0401/ET08-8512.html

 

The Burning Cross (3)

 

BY PRADEEP SHARMA

 

EDITORIAL, Jan 8 (VNN) — The article "The Burning Cross part 1 and part 2" has drawn numerous questions and remarks from my readers, some favorable and some not so favorable. In this final essay of the series I shall attempt to answer some of the more important questions on this topic and also to give some quotes from pure devotees, as I have been disparaged for not doing so previously.

 

QUESTION: Prabhupada said, "Jesus is our guru". What is your explanation to that?

 

ANSWER: Shree Prabhupada may have said that "Jesus is our guru," but this statement requires some qualification, otherwise Prabhupada would have listed Jesus in the parampara in his introduction to Bhagavad-Gita As It Is.

 

In the quote below, Shree Prabhupada calls Jesus our spiritual master, but it does not appear that Prabhupada intended his statement to be an instruction to his disciples to actually accept Jesus as their guru.

 

"Once, in Melbourne, a group of Christian ministers came to visit me. They asked, "What is your idea of Jesus Christ?" I told them, 'He is our guru. He is preaching God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master.' The ministers very much appreciated that." (Science of Self realization Ch. 4)

 

The question arises, how is Jesus our guru? Does he come in a Vaishnava disciplic succession or does he simply represent an ideal of guru-tattva? Based on the study of Prabhupada's statements we conclude that Prabhupada is referring to the ideal found in Jesus and not to the person of Jesus, 'per se'.

 

Shree Prabhupada says that because Jesus is preaching God consciousness he is our guru. By this token then every person to have ever preached God consciousness in this world is our guru. But we should consider, in which way is Jesus our guru?

 

The idea of living and sacrificing for the benefit of others, as Jesus has supposedly done, is indeed admirable but we do not accept the teachings of Jesus/Christianity as very advanced or as a bona fide theology. This is confirmed by Shree Bhaktivinode in "Tatttva-viveka" who rejects the theology of the Trinity found in Christianity as "delirious mixed reasoning".

 

jada-bhranta-pralapini dvaitam traitam bahutvam va ropayaty eva yatnatah

 

"Bewildered by matter, and talking wildly, material logic sometimes declares that there are two, three, or many Gods." (Tattva Viveka, vrs-21)

 

"That delirious mixed-reasoning even after accepting the divinity becomes unable to establish the unity of God. Sometimes it imagines two principles as divinity and decides that the sentient principle is a divinity and also the materialistic principle is another one.

 

The sentient divinity is the source of all auspiciousness whereas the divinity of material principle is the source of inauspiciousness. A certain philosopher called Zarathustra has accepted the eternity of two gods viz. holy and unholy by advocating duality in his book named Zendavesta.

 

Followers of the devotional cult have shown their contempt for this theory and also for the doctrines of karma-kanda and jnana-kanda as atheistic thoughts.

 

Zarathustra was a very old philosopher. Since his philosophy could not find any followers in India, he preached it successfully in the country of Iran. His philosophy became so contagious that in the religion of the Jews and finally the followers of Koran it created an entity called 'Satan' as a rival to God.

 

When Zarathustra was preaching his philosophy of duality, there arose a necessity of three divine principles among the Jews, as a result of which the theory of 'Trinity' was developed. At first, three different gods were imagined in the theory of Trinity and latter on when scholars could not get pleased with it, it was reasonably settled by accepting the three principles of God, Holy Ghost and Christ.

 

...The Supreme Lord is a principle without a second... Any sane person will agree that this manifested universe has been created by the will of a single Supreme Personality." (Tattva Viveka, vrs-21, commentary.)

 

Some aspects of the noble ideal found in Jesus may be accepted by a Vaishnava acharya but this does not give credibility to Christianity on the whole as a bona fide religion. Nor does this suggest that Jesus was actually a member of the guru-tattva. Jesus may have portrayed an aspect of what it means to be guru and therefore this is praiseworthy, but this does not mean that Jesus is equal to a Vaishnava or a Vaishnava guru.

 

Quoting Bhaktisiddhanta, Shree Prabhupada has said about the comparison between Vasudeva Datta and Jesus Christ, that Vasudeva Datta was millions of times more advanced than Jesus Christ. Prabhupada makes the distinction between Jesus and a Vaishnava in terms of their generosity and self-sacrifice by saying that a Vaishnava is prepared to risk everything to save the conditioned souls whereas Jesus was not.

 

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur gives the following commentary on this verse. In the Western countries, Christians believe that Lord Jesus Christ, their spiritual master, appeared in order to eradicate all the sins of his disciples. To this end, Lord Jesus Christ appeared and disappeared. Here, however, we find Shree Vasudeva Datta Thakur and Shree Haridas Thakur to be many millions of times more advanced even when compared with Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ relieved only his followers from all sinful reactions, but Vasudeva Datta is here prepared to accept the sins of everyone in the universe. So the comparative position of Vasudeva Datta is millions of times better than that of Lord Jesus Christ. A Vaishnava is so liberal that he is prepared to risk everything to rescue the conditioned souls from material existence.

 

ShreeVasudeva Datta Thakur is universal love itself, for he was willing to sacrifice everything and fully engage in the service of the Supreme Lord.

 

"Srila Vasudeva Datta knew very well that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was the original Personality of Godhead, Transcendence itself, above the material conception of illusion and maya. Lord Jesus Christ certainly finished the sinful reactions of his followers by his mercy, but that does not mean he completely delivered them from the pangs of material existence. A person may be relieved from sins once, but it is a practice among Christians to confess sins and yet commit them again. By getting freed from sins and again engaging in them, one cannot attain freedom from the pangs of material existence. A diseased person may go to a physician for relief, but after he leaves the hospital he may again be infected due to his unclean habits.

 

Thus material existence continues. Srila Vasudeva Datta wanted to completely relieve the conditioned souls from material existence so that they would no longer have an opportunity to commit sinful acts. This is the significant difference between Srila Vasudeva Datta and Lord Jesus Christ. It is a great offense to receive pardon for sins and then commit the same sins again. Such an offense is more dangerous than the sinful activity itself. Vasudeva Datta was so liberal that he requested Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to transfer all offensive activity upon him so the conditioned souls would be purified and go back home, back to Godhead. This prayer was certainly without duplicity." (Cc, Madya 15.163 purport)

 

On occasion Prabhupada may have referred to "Jesus as our guru" but I think it is obvious he did not think that Jesus or Christianity were on an equal footing with Vaishnavism. Also I get the impression that devotees assume that because Prabhupada was a pure devotee of Krishna that he was automatically a Biblical scholar, when in fact he was not. My research in the Bhaktivedanta Data Base showed that Prabhupada had not actually studied Christianity and he stated this when asked, "What's your view of Judaism and Christianity?"

 

Prabhupada replied, "I have not studied, but any "ism," if it is meant for making the soul free from this bodily condition, that is first class "ism." Otherwise, it is simply waste of time." (1976 July 16 New York)

 

Whenever we did find Prabhupada quoting something favorable about Jesus or Christianity it was usually in a situation wherein he preferred to encourage his audience. But the facts indicate that Prabhupada did not want his followers wasting time with Christian theology. This is clear in the following statement.

 

Prabhupada writes, "Regarding your questions on Christianity, we are not very much keen to engage them in argument because for the most part they are sentimentalists and have no philosophy, therefore they become fanatics or dogmatists, and this type of person we cannot change. (Letter to Dasarha 1977 March 4 Bombay)

 

In a conversation Shree Prabhupada makes further accusations that the Christian theologians are rascals.

 

Candanacarya: "Yesterday I made the acquaintance of a theologist, a professor from the University of Montreal. He said that the Roman Catholic presentation of Christianity is that God came to share the suffering of man."

 

Prabhupada: "That is another rascaldom. Why God should share the sufferings of man?"

 

Candanacarya: "I asked him this, and he said, 'So that man would accept more as reality, suffering.'"

 

Prabhupada: Very good theologian - a rascal number one." (Los Angeles, Dec. 15, 1973)

 

I am really surprised how the devotees quote Prabhupada having said, "Jesus is our guru" as if Prabhupada himself had observed Christmas or Easter celebrations, but I think not. I have also observed that devotees do not hesitate to condemn Shankar Acharya or the worship of Lord Shiva but when it comes to making any statement questioning Jesus they get very emotional and agitated as do Hindus when questioned about demigod worship or as Christians do when asked to prove the historical Jesus. This is an obvious symptom of attachment to their previous roots.

 

What I think is that a more insightful understanding of the actual message of the acharya, and not simply setting up a canon of dogmatic statements in its place, is what is required if the Krishna consciousness movement is to become a vital tradition in the West.

 

QUESTION: In some conversations, Prabhupada has mentioned the "Aquarian Gospel" which states that Jesus was in Jagannath Puri. Do you accept this evidence?

 

ANSWER: No, I do not accept the "Aquarian Gospel" as admissible evidence. The "Aquarian Gospel" is not a Gospel recognized by religious scholars. This pretence of a "Gospel" is the work of a 20th century American named Levi H. Dowling that he supposedly channeled from the Akashic records in 1908. Of course receiving knowledge via revelation (the Akashic records) is certainly possible, but the "Aquarian Gospel" fails to pass the test of spirituality. Unfortunately many people confuse the "Aquarian Gospel" for a Gospel from antiquity when truthfully it is not.

 

Our research has revealed that Prabhupada sometimes discussed the "Aquarian Gospel," but we have not found that he actually recommended it to his disciples. In fact we have found evidence showing that Prabhupada ultimately rejected the "Aquarian Gospel".

 

Prabhupada writes: "Regarding Aquarian Gospel of Lord Jesus The Christ, I have taken some stray extracts just to support our views, but we don't give any importance to that book. (Letter to Tamal Krishna, 14 Sept. 1969)

 

Also Prabhupada has written: "Regarding your question about Lord Jesus Christ, we accept him as saktyavesa avatara. Lord Buddha is in the same category also.

 

Lord Buddha is mentioned specifically in Srimad-Bhagavatam as incarnation of Godhead, and yet Vaishnavas do not accept his philosophy, which is classified as atheism. Similarly, even if we accept Lord Jesus Christ as saktyavesa avatara, it doesn't mean that we have to accept his philosophy. But we have all respects for him without fail. Regarding books like Aquarian Gospel or even the Testaments, we cannot accept them as authorities because sometimes it is learnt that the words are not actually spoken by Christ, but they are so set up by the devotees." (Letter to Hamsaduta, Nov.2, 1969)

 

Additionally it should be mentioned that in the "Aquarian Gospel" where it is mentioned that Jesus went to Puri it also says that he (Jesus) criticized Lord Jagannath. We have noted that the style of the "Aquarian Gospel" takes the same platform against Jagannath and Vedic Culture as did the bulk of missionaries in India during the 18th and 19th centuries. Possibly Dowling's intent was to gain acceptability for his literary creation among the Christian critics of Jagannath. In any case the "Aquarian Gospel" casts Jesus in the role of an offender to Shree Jagannath.

 

Chapter 24 of the "Aquarian Gospel" states, "In Puri, Jesus asks the Brahmins about caste. The Brahmins explain that according to the shastra, the Brahmins came from the mouth of Parabrahma, the kshatriyas from the arms, the vaishyas from the thighs and the shudras from His feet.

 

"Jesus exclaims that Parabrahma is not a God of justice and of right; for with his own strong hand he has exulted one and brought another low. The Brahmins become angry at his blasphemy and with threats of violence, drove him from Puri."

 

Chapter 26 of the "Aquarian Gospel" states, " During the Rathayatra festival, Jesus witnesses the cart of Jagannath being pulled and says -"Behold, a form without a spirit passes by; a body with no soul; a temple with no altar fires. This car of Krishna is an empty thing, for Krishna is not there. This car is but an idol of a people drunk on wine of carnal things. God lives not in the noise of tongues; there is no way to him from any idol shrine. God's meeting place with man is in the heart, and in a still small voice he speaks; and he who hears is still."

 

"The people ask Jesus, "To whom shall we bring gifts? Where shall we offer sacrifice? Jesus replies - "Our Father-God asks not for needless waste of plant, of grain, of dove, of lamb. That which you burn on any shrine you throw away. No blessings can attend the one who takes the food from hungry mouths to be destroyed by fire. When you would offer sacrifice unto our God, just take your gift of grain, or meat and lay it on the table of the poor. From it an incense will arise to heaven, which will return to you with blessedness.

 

Tear down your idols; they can hear you not; turn all your sacrificial altars into fuel for the flames. Make human hearts your altars, and burn your sacrifices with the fire of love."

 

This reference above certainly contains a mixture of both pleasing and disturbing words. Such is the work of rascals. Throw in a few words at the end like "human hearts", "love" and "sacrifice" to make it sound like something acceptable, but the gist of the above quote, if indeed true, certainly makes Jesus out to be offensive to Shree Jagannath.

 

Some devotees wrote to me saying that Jesus was a pure devotee and according to the "Aquarian Gospel," Jesus came to India not to receive anything but only to give - to give pagan idolaters something they new nothing about, God. This idea is unacceptable that a pure devotee comes to India, but only finds fault and learns nothing.

 

In conclusion, Shree Prabhupada says that he does not accept the "Aquarian Gospel" as bona fide nor does it appear that he accepted the Bible and other non-Vedic scriptures.

 

Prabhupada says, "The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

 

Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore, although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy, deem these scriptures unacceptable. (Cc Adi. 17,169 purport)

 

However, if we choose to accept the Yavana scriptures as a bona fide truth, in this case the "Aquarian Gospel", then Jesus is made out to be an offender. So either the "Aquarian Gospel" is a fraud or Jesus is a fraud or both are frauds. In any case we do not find these books useful for attaining transcendental knowledge.

 

QUESTION: Bhaktisiddhanta and Prabhupada have referred to Jesus as a Shaktyavesa-avatar. What is your response to that?

 

ANSWER: Shaktyavesa means one who is empowered and if indeed the personality of Jesus actually existed and he did everything they say he did then I would agree that he was a Shaktyavesa-avatar.

 

But as Prabhupada has said, Lord Buddha who is mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam was also a Shaktyavesa-avatar, yet Vaishnavas do not accept his philosophy. What then to speak of Jesus, whose religion is for the Yavanas and Mlecchas. There is no necessity of stressing that Jesus was a Shaktyavesa-avatar because there is no need to accept his philosophy. Indeed there isn't any philosophy in Christianity except the doctrine of salvation through Jesus. That is not philosophy, that is fanaticism.

 

QUESTION: I have heard that some scholars consider the personality Jesus to be an amalgamation of the lives of several other pre-Christian saviors. Do you agree with this idea?

 

ANSWER: The most credit I can give to the existence of Jesus is that of an amalgamation of more than one personality. This is a solution to the problem that many scholars accept.

 

It so happens that eighty percent of the sayings of Jesus have been confirmed by Biblical scholars to have come from pre-Christian traditions such as Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Jewish, thus alluding to the amalgamation theory. To go into details in this article on how much of Christianity is borrowed from someone or somewhere would simply become too voluminous.

 

It has also been confirmed that, during the time of Paul, the Jewish people were divided over whether the Messiah had already come or was yet to come. A point of contention was that the Messiah was to lead the people of Israel as a conquering King, something that in any case has not yet happened. For this reason the Jews to this day do not accept Jesus of the Gospel as the Messiah.

 

However, there were a couple of popular Jewish cult leaders by the name of Jesus that lived before and after the Jesus of the Gospels who are mentioned in the Talmud and other Jewish records such as Jesus ben Pandera, 70 BC and Jesus ben Stada, 2nd century AD circa.

 

Both these men of the name Jesus were stoned to death for being sorcerers and hung on trees during the Passover. These men were executed by the order of the priest of the Jewish temple. Historical accounts say that these two men were political agitators and miracle workers who had some following among the common Jews, but were not in good graces with the priests.

 

Roman records also mention many so-called Jewish Messiahs being crucified for speaking out against the authority of the Roman government, but none of them were named Jesus. The Jews executed people they thought to be heretics by stoning whereas the Romans executed political agitators by crucifixion.

 

During the alleged time of Jesus it is confirmed that Rome practiced religious tolerance. All types of religion were not only tolerated but also were practiced throughout the Roman Empire. But political agitators were never tolerated and were put to death by the most gruesome means, crucifixion. If indeed "Jesus" was crucified, then this would indicate that he was being punished as a political offender and not as a religious reformer.

 

Paul seems to have been of the opinion that the people needed one God and one savior to believe in - thus the amalgamation of many Jewish martyrs, pagan gods, and moral traditions into one super star, Jesus Christ Super Star, to lead the world to salvation.

 

QUESTION: Some devotees told me they thought that Jesus was Lord Brahma. This is based on the Bible, where it is said that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Do you think this is possible?

 

ANSWER: This is the first time I have ever heard that theory, but two devotees did write me recently to say that they thought that Jesus was Balaram or Nityananda.

 

Whether Jesus is Brahma, Balaram, or Nityananda cannot established by any creditable Vedic source. It is simply interpolation.

 

To say that Jesus is Brahma is to say that Shree Brahmaji decided to make an appearance in this world independent of any disciplic succession and to just go off on his own and do his own thing. Not a very intelligent proposal. Brahmaji, being the father of the oldest sampradaya in this universe, would hardly set an example of going out to preach God consciousness without any parampara authority. And then getting himself nailed to a cross as a result of it. This is not a good theory.

 

But assuming, as you say, that Jesus was Brahmaji, then we are faced with the problem of why Shree Chaitanya completely ignored Christianity during His lila. Lord Chaitanya dealt with Mayavadis, Buddhist, materialists, and even Muslims but we have no record that He acknowledged the existence of Christianity.

 

This is indeed a problem when we consider that the Syrian Christians had been in South India for several centuries by the time Shree Chaitanya visited the people and temples there.

 

If Jesus had been Shree Brahmaji then why would Shree Chaitanya choose to neglect his spiritual descendants, especially when it turns out that the Syrian Church of India was one of the purest forms of Christianity on the planet at the time, not yet polluted by the politics of the European church and state?

 

To consider Jesus to be Brahma or any other personality of the Vedic scripture is an unnecessary interpolation. Too much brain work in the wrong direction is not good. We should use our brain to understand shrota-siddhanta, that which is given by acharyas and not waste time in speculation trying to make a clay doll into a marble statue.

 

QUESTION: The prophecy of Jesus is mentioned in the Bhavisya Purana, written 5000 years ago. Do you accept this evidence?

 

ANSWER: Bhavishya Purana is perhaps the most interpolated book in the Vedic library. Because this books deals with future events and personalities, over time many devious persons have added their interpolations. This is a commonly known fact and therefore the Bhavishya Purana has lost its validity as an acceptable evidence amongst scholars.

 

However, owing to the fact that the Bhavishya Purana was originally a bona fide text it therefore should still contain some valuable information. Generally speaking a reference from the Bhavishya Purana about any event or personality must have a cross reference from another bona fide Vedic literature before it will be accepted by scholars.

 

To the best of my knowledge the statements about Jesus in the Bhavishya Purana do not have a cross reference in any other Vedic literature and are therefore considered an interpolation.

 

QUESTION: Some Christian mystics, who lived long before Shree Chaitanya, have mentioned Madhurya-rasa in their books. Do you accept this fact?

 

ANSWER: No. But if you stretch the meaning of madhurya-rasa to fit any sentiment of mundane love then possibly some Christian mystics have made such expressions. When we think of madhurya-rasa as the topmost transcendental emotion between the Rasa Murti, Shree Krishna and Mahabhava, Shree Radharani then the so-called madhurya-rasa of the Christian mystics falls into the shadows.

 

Common examples to establish madhurya-rasa in Christianity are the Brides of Christ (St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Catherine of Sienna) and St. John of the Cross. Having looked at these examples we find no substantial reason to believe that these actually demonstrate madhurya-rasa. We do recognize that these Christian saints may have considered themselves Brides of Christ, but it does not go beyond that, certainly not to madhurya-rasa. Being a Bride of Christ is not madhurya-rasa nor does it indicate madhurya-rasa.

 

Madhurya-rasa necessitates developed information about the form and qualities of the Personality of Godhead, something that is totally absent in Christianity. The Brides of Christ conception is a relationship with Jesus, the Son of God and not with God Himself. So for that reason also it cannot be accepted as madhurya-rasa.

 

In the Gospels of Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19-20, Luke 5:34-35, and John 3:29 Jesus uses the parable of a wedding between God and the people of Israel. Over time this parable was adopted literally amongst the Catholic monastic orders by considering themselves the Brides of Christ. This however does not qualify as madhurya-rasa.

 

The Brides of Christ is also not an original Christian idea for this was borrowed from the tradition of the Roman Vestal Virgins who were considered chaste and married to the eternal fire. Dr. Susanna Roxman, Department of Comparative Literature, Gothenburg University, Sweden says that the Brides of Christ (Nuns) were the successors of the Vestal Virgins and that a Nuns' headdress originates from the bridal headdress of the Vestal Virgins of Rome.

 

If we accept that the Brides of Christ are in madhurya-rasa, then we will eventually have to admit that the Vestal Virgins of Rome were also in madhurya-rasa. After all what makes the God of the Christians (who was not Krishna) any more righteous than the God of the Romans (who was at least a demigod)? In any case neither manifested the symptoms of madhurya-rasa.

 

St.Margaret Mary Alacoque, a Salesian nun, and St Catherine of Sienna are considered by the Catholic Church to be outstanding personalities in the order of the Brides of Christ. Prof. Herbert Thurston, in his book "The Physical Accompaniments of the Mystics" writes, "St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (feast day: October 17) was a Salesian nun who cut the monogram of Jesus into her breast, and when it was healing too fast, burned it in again with a candle. At times she drank only water used to wash the sick, ate rotten bread and fruit, and once licked up the sputum of a patient with her tongue. In her autobiography she described the joy she felt when she had eaten the faeces (stool) of a patient suffering diarrhea (!).

 

For this ordeal she was allowed to kiss the heart of Jesus, who apparently held her in his arms the subsequent night."

 

Are we to conclude that by the act of eating human faeces that St. Margaret got admission to madhurya-rasa with Jesus? Certainly an absurd idea.

 

Dr. Onya Moutray McArthur of the University of Connecticut writes that Catherine of Sienna, wrote in her book "The Dialogue" concerning her mystical "marriage" to Jesus. According to Catherine, Jesus actually cut off, at the time of His circumcision, his foreskin and fashioned it into a ring with which she was married and united to Him.

 

Now we are told that Catherine received a wedding ring made from the skin of Jesus' circumcision when he was a child and we are supposed to accept this as madhurya-rasa? What has any of this got to do with madhurya-rasa? Nothing. It simply sounds like tamo-guna (the mode of ignorance) or even something ghostly.

 

Who is the God of the Christians anyway? Is it Jesus? If it is Jesus then Christians are mayavadis, guru is God. Actually the Christians have no God, no Deity, and thus no salvation. The Romans on the other hand worshipped demigods including Surya (Mithras) the Sun God. Better worshipping some manifestation of the Supreme (a demigod) than worshipping no God at all.

 

The poem of St. John of the Cross "The Ascent of Mount Carmel," although speaking about the "Lover and his beloved" lacks the essential element of ashraya or the shelter of the internal potency. Without the shelter of the internal potency a living entity cannot come to madhurya-rasa. It is not possible for the living entity to enter into rasa without the shelter of the internal potency.

 

When even Hindu spiritualists like Mirabai, who wrote many songs and poems directly expressing her love affair with Krishna, are not accepted in madhurya-rasa by Gaudiya Vaishnavas, then what to speak of others whose expressions of madhurya-rasa are only mundane mundane sentiments toward an unknown God.

 

It should also be mentioned that St. John of the Cross and the Brides of Christ cannot go beyond the teaching of their master Jesus Christ, who only taught about the 'Fatherhood" of Godhead and nothing about amorous love, madhurya-rasa. From all points of view madhurya-rasa is not a part of Christianity, past or present.

 

Shree Bhaktivinode says that until his time madhurya-rasa had not yet gone outside of India and we think that his statement was fully correct.

 

"Till now, this rasa (madhurya-rasa) has not crossed beyond India. Recently a scholar from England named Newman realized something about this rasa and wrote a book about it. The people of Europe and America have not been satisfied with vatsalya rasa mixed with opulence as preached by Jesus Christ. I hope, by the grace of the Lord, in a very short time they will become attached to drinking the intoxicating nectar of madhurya rasa." (Bhaktivinode, Intro to Krishna Samhita)

 

QUESTION: You have said that St. Xavier brought the Inquisition to India and that he was responsible for the thousands of innocent people who were burned at the stake. This terrible atrocity was performed by Xavier and other men but not by Jesus. Therefore it is not fare to say that the Inquisition represented the teachings of Jesus.

 

ANSWER: We would like to think that burning innocent people at the stake did not represent Jesus but the fact is that the Inquisition was indeed established by the Christian Church on the authority of the Bible.

 

References in the Bible for burning the non-believers are found in Matthew, John, and Luke. According to the Bible, Jesus himself says that non-believers are to be burned.

 

Jesus says, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6)

 

"The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matthew 13.41,43)

 

John the Baptist also encouraged burning non-believers as follows: "Every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Luke 3.12)

 

Whether or not Jesus actually intended his followers to burn non-believers at the stake we will never know for sure but the Church used his words to condemn non-believers to death by fire and this is a historical fact.

 

I mentioned in a previous article that Xavier brought the Inquisition to India and that Brahminism was targeted in general but I should also mention that the Inquisition in India first focused on the Jews of Malabar and then turned against the Syrian Christians in Goa and Kerala who were reluctant to accept the Pope and then turned on the Brahmins and Hindus. No one escaped the wrathful eye of the Inquisition who did not acquiesce to Portuguese Christian dominance or flee for their lives.