Jesus devotee Krisna.

[kailasa 0]

"It does not mean that because one is mahä-bhägavata he should not be put into trials. He can be put into trials, because the material world is like that. The western country, they, Lord Jesus Christ, he was put into trials but he never forgot Kåñëa. This is sign of mahä-bhägavata, nitya-siddha."

 

His position is lower than situation of the companions Lord Caitanya in spiritual sense.

 

"Here, however, we find Çré Väsudeva Datta Öhäkura and Çréla Haridäsa Öhäkura to be many millions of times more advanced even when compared to Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ relieved only his followers from all sinful reactions, but Väsudeva Datta is here prepared to accept the sins of everyone in the universe.

 

Lord Jesus Christ certainly finished the sinful reactions of his followers by his mercy, but that does not mean that he completely delivered them from the pangs of material existence.

 

Çréla Väsudeva 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 difference between Çréla Väsudeva Datta and Lord Jesus Christ."

 

"A Vaiñëava should follow the examples of such Vaiñëavas as Haridäsa Öhäkura, Nityänanda Prabhu and also Lord Jesus Christ. There is no need to kill anyone who has already been killed. But it should be noted herewith that a Vaiñëava should not tolerate the blaspheming of Viñëu or Vaiñëavas, although he should tolerate personal insults to himself."

 

If who speaks that that at him is great sraddha in the God, Jesus responds him - " if you have though drop sraddha, tell to a mountain to move and she will move. "

 

Spiritual world is described sometimes as Brahmaloka.

 

gréväyäà janaloko ’sya

tapolokaù stana-dvayät

mürdhabhiù satyalokas tu

 

brahmalokah sanatanah

 

"From the forefront of the chest up to the neck of the universal form of the Lord are situated the planetary systems named Janaloka and Tapoloka, whereas Satyaloka, the topmost planetary system, is situated on the head of the form. The spiritual planets, however, are eternal."

 

...But the Brahmaloka mentioned here is not the same as the Satyaloka planetary system. This Brahmaloka is eternal, whereas the Satyaloka planetary system is not eternal."

 

There is an opinion that Jesus it Svayambhuva Manu. Can be.

 

"The Emperor Sväyambhuva Manu, the son of Lord Brahmä, who is well known for his righteous acts, has his seat in Brahmävarta and rules over the earth with its seven oceans."

 

PURPORT

 

Sometimes it is stated that Brahmävarta is a part of Kurukñetra or that Kurukñetra itself is situated in Brahmävarta, because the demigods are recommended to perform spiritual ritualistic performances in Kurukñetra. But in others’ opinion, Brahmävarta is a place in Brahmaloka, where Sväyambhuva ruled. There are many places on the surface of this earth which are also known in the higher planetary systems; we have places on this planet like Våndävana, Dvärakä and Mathurä, but they are also eternally situated in Kåñëaloka. There are many similar names on the surface of the earth, and it may be that in the Boar age Sväyambhuva Manu ruled this planet, as stated here..."

 

"Anyone who can reach Brahmaloka, or Satyaloka, by dint of spiritual perfection and practice is qualified to attain three different types of perfection. One who has attained a specific planet by dint of pious activities attains places in terms of his comparative pious activities. One who has attained the place by dint of viräö or Hiraëyagarbha worship is liberated along with the liberation of Brahmä. But one who attains the place by dint of devotional service is specifically mentioned here, in relation to how he can penetrate into the different coverings of the universe and thus ultimately disclose his spiritual identity in the absolute atmosphere of supreme existence."

 

"Still higher planets, such as Maharloka, Tapoloka, Satyaloka and Brahmaloka, do not dissolve in the devastating water. This is because of the causeless devotional service rendered unto the Lord by their inhabitants, whose existence continues up to the end of dvi-parärdha time, when they are generally liberated from the chain of birth and death in the material world."

 

On the mahä-prakäça day, Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu embraced Haridäsa Öhäkura and informed him that he was none other than an incarnation of Prahläda Mahäräja.

[krishnas 0]

I don't have any objection to appreciating the good qualities in other religious figures.

 

But objectively speaking, how is Jesus Christ a pure devotee of Krishna, to be named in the same sentence as Vasudeva datta, Haridaasa Thaakura, and others? Certainly the Bible records some very pious and saintly acts on the part of Jesus Christ.

 

But the Bible records other acts and statements of Jesus that are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics.

 

For example, I have read of miracles in which Jesus makes fish appear to distraught fishermen. If he was performing a miracle to feed some starving fishermen, then why not make something vegetarian appear, instead of killing a bunch of innocent fish?

 

I have read in other places where God directs his people to sacrifice animals, even cows:

 

"But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shall burn their fat as an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD;" (Num 18:17)

 

Christians also believe that Jesus is God incarnate on the earth. But the notion of God having a material body and suffering for the sins of mankind is simply not an acceptable concept, as Vedaantic tradition holds that the Lord's body is transcendental and thus immune to material influences.

 

There is also a concept (from Exodus, I think) wherein the Hebrews are regarded as the "chosen people" of God, as compared to say the Egyptians who are made to look like villains. This is also not consistent with Vedic thinking, which holds that all people are spirit souls and constitutionally devotees of Lord Krishna, regardless of the their different bodily identifications. Keep in mind that in Exodus, God not only punishes Pharoah for his tenacity, but also the entire Egyptian population (with plagues, starvations, raining fire, etc).

 

Texts like Shriimad Bhaagavatam and Nectar of Devotion describe many symptoms of a pure devotee of Krishna. But how many of these symptoms were exhibited by Jesus Christ, and are specific for pure devotion to the Lord (that is, they cannot be explained by any other cause)?

 

Taking all of this together, I believe we should avoid trying to reinterpret other religious doctrines for the sake of preaching.

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

I tend to agree that it is best not to mix different traditions together. However, I don't think your objections are that objectionable.

 

There is some disagreement on the fish statement. In some Steven Rosen book he mentions how from one interpretation Jesus only fed bread to the multitudes. I'd have to look up his statements in that regard. Even still, he would be relating to individuals on their level.

 

For the Bible condoning animal sacrifice, I have mentioned before that the Biblical view is that originally everyone was vegetarian. But even in Vedic traditions there are sanctions for meat eating and animal sacrifice.

 

The notion of Jesus as God incarnate on earth suffering pain is also a disagreement amoung some groups of Christians. There was one group called the Cathars (who were wiped out) that did not believe that Jesus's body suffered. In fact they say (if I recall correctly) that Jesus was always a spirit, and was so pure that I think he never even touched the ground.

 

As for symptoms of pure devotion, maybe its not a recognized symptom but Jesus is said to have prayed so intensely in the Garden of Gethsemane that blood poured from his forehead. And what could be more of a surrender to God than to freely go along with His will, no matter the pain or suffering.

 

I do agree, however, that in general it is probably best not to mix various traditions. We might get the mix out of proper balance and proportion, and concoct things that were never intended in either tradition.

[theist 1]

krishnas,

 

What do you think of Bhaktivinode Thakurs eatting of flesh foods?

[shvu 1]

 

 

But the Bible records other acts and statements of Jesus that are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics.

While that may be true, there is no rule stated anywhere that one who does not follow the Vaishnava ethics of one Indian sect, cannot be a pure devotee. In fact following ethics of one particular group, has got nothing to do with devotion.

 

But objectively speaking, how is Jesus Christ a pure devotee of Krishna, to be named in the same sentence as Vasudeva datta, Haridaasa Thaakura, and others?

If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

In fact following ethics of one particular group, has got nothing to do with devotion.

If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them.

Your own stated logic defeats this statement as walking on water and the other miracles have nothing to do with devotion.

 

It would be like saying Ford was a better devotee because he made cars, something jesus never did. There is no connection between the two points.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Let me make it more clear. Krishnas says some acts of Jesus "are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics" and consequently he (Jesus) is not upto devotees who follow Vaishnava ethics.

 

My point is, where has it been said that following Vaishnava ethics is a required qualification to be be a pure devotee?

 

The second point I made is, can the purity of a devotee be measured? If following Vaishnava ethics is a test of purity, then by the same logic, I cam make a similar argument that Jesus did so many out_of_way things which the Vaishnava devotees did not and hence he must have been *more* pure.

 

I stated the example to show any standards for determining purity of devotees is something that we make up on our own.

 

Cheers

 

[theist 1]

It becomes especially difficult when trying to measure empowered incarnations.For instance trying to evaluate Rsabhadeva against Prithu Maharaja.

 

From the perspective of a conditioned soul who cannot even accurately ascertain ones own nature and position we can see how it would be impossible.

 

I would like to invite krishnas to go through Srila Prabhupada's statements on Christ and see how many times he speaks of Lord Jesus Christ and Haridas Thakur in the same sentence.

[raga 0]

If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them.

 

<hr>

 

I'd like to contribute an excerpt from the life of Barha Baba from "The Saints of Bengal". This incident was not unique in his life.

 

<hr>

 

<font color=darkblue>Sri Radharamana Carana Dasa Deva was popularly known as ‘Barha Baba’, which means ‘Baba the Great.’ He was so called because he was truly great-great in heart, great in love, great in power to do things, which our men of reason and science would not believe even if they see. He was like a stream of love running its course and sweeping along with it every soul that came in its way toward the boundless and bottomless Ocean of Love and Peace and Transcendental Bliss. He carried Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s message of love from place to place, door to door and person to person, singing and dancing, laughing and weeping in rapturous ecstasies like Mahaprabhu Himself. A veritable dynamo of love, he lovingly embraced whomsoever he met and by his mere touch transmitted a wave of love into his heart.

 

He was like an angel that came down to earth to alleviate our suffering and deliver us from bondage by telling us how all our suffering could be easily removed and we could attain the highest goal of life, the attainment of the Lotus Feet of the Lord, only by chanting His Name. Since we, the jivas of Kali would not easily believe, he took it upon himself to demonstrate to us the inconceivable power of the Divine Name by curing diseases, melting stones, making the trees dance and the animals behave like devout Vaishnavas and even by bringing the dead back to life by chanting His Name.

 

Yes, he brought even the dead back to life by chanting Harinama on a number of occasions. The most glaring example was that of the dead body of a lady, whom he brought back to life on the cremation ground itself before a crowd of thousands of people in Calcutta.

 

The dead body of a young lady was brought by some maravaris to the cremation ground on the bank of Ganges, when Sri Radharamana Carana Dasa Baba Mahasaya was bathing in the river along with Jogen Babu and a number of other disciples. As Baba saw this he was for sometime lost within himself. He said to himself, “Ah! The lady is going without hearing the Name of the Lord. Poor thing! She will have to suffer the unending cycle of birth and death.” Then he said to Radhavinoda and Phani, “Go and see what the maraviris are doing with the body. Ask them not to burn it until I come.”

 

Radhavinoda and Phani went and saw that the maravaris had placed the dead body on the pyre and were about to set fire to it. They said to them, “Our Guru Maharaja has requested that you may please wait till he comes.” They did not heed. Baba Mahasaya then sent Jogen Babu, who said to them entreatingly, “Please for God’s sake wait a while, our Gurudeva is coming. The maravaris looked amazingly at Jogen Babu and at each other and did not know what to do. In the meantime Baba Mahasaya came. He said, “Brethren, please bring the corpse down from the pyre.” As he said this his heart was full of compassion, his eyes beamed with affection and his voice rang with a note that was divine and benedictory. They brought the body down. Baba Mahasaya asked Rama Dasa to sit behind the head of the body and Radhavinoda and Phani Dasa to sit on its either side.

 

He himself sat near its feet, holding its great toes with both of his hands. He then began to chant, ‘Bhaja Nitai-Gaura Radhe-Syama, Japa Hare Krishna Hare Rama, and asked all others to join him in the chanting. A crowd gathered on the scene. Everybody was chanting and looking eagerly and expectantly now at Baba Mahasaya, now at the dead body. This continued for half an hour. Then suddenly Baba Mahasaya exclaimed, “Jai Nitai!”, and pulled the toes of the lady with a jerk. And lo! The lady opened her eyes. The maravaris sprang with joy. Everyone shouted, “Haribol!”- while the lady looked all round with bewilderment. Baba Mahasaya said to her, “Do you recognize your relatives?” She replied in the affirmative by a gesture of the eye.

 

Baba Mahasaya asked the maravaris to bring some milk. The lady was made to drink milk. She drank it little by little. As she drank the cries of “Haribol!” again rent the sky.

 

The news spread like wildfire that a sadhu had brought a dead body back to life at Nimtala Ghata. Crowd after crowd of people began to pour in from different directions. This continued for about an hour and a half. Then Baba Mahasaya ceased to hold the lady’s toes. She also ceased to breathe and closed her eyes.

 

Her relations fell at Baba’s feet and prayed that she might be made to live and sent back home. But Baba Mahasaya said, “How can I do what Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself did not think it proper to do with the son of Srivasa? Could He not make him live longer after He had brought him back to life for a short while? He did not because He did not think it proper to undo what fate had done or God had willed. Now, God willed to demonstrate to the people, who would not believe without seeing, that the power of the Name is infinite and that it can even bring the dead back to life. So He has done it. One must know that the Name of God is even more powerful than God. It can do easily what God cannot. If one believes in the power of the Name, nothing else remains to be done. Without the mercy of the Name one can neither achieve prema nor enter the realm of the Divine lila.” With these words Baba Mahasaya soothed every one and then went back to bathe again in the Ganges.

 

 

[raga 0]

If someone likes, I'd be happy to contribute more "miracles" from the lives of Vaishnava saints.

[theist 1]

As far as miracles go, it would make for an interesting thread unto itself I think.But it wasn't shvu's point to compare miracles.

 

I am curious as to the meaning of the term Vaisnava ethics.What does that mean exactly?

[shvu 1]

 

Raga,

 

I wasn't out to compare specifics between Jesus and Vaishnava saints. I was citing an example to illustrate my point and that is, the intensity, purity of devotion in an individual cannot be measured by his actions. In fact, there is no way one can measure devotional intensity, much less compare two individuals [of completely different backgrounds] wrt devotion.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Theist:

 

What do you think of Bhaktivinode Thakurs eatting of flesh foods?

 

Is this true? What was the context? [not that I think that any context can justify meat eating].

 

Shvu:

 

If we set out to compare the level of purity in devotees, since the other folks did not walk on water, bring dead people back to life, etc, one can say Jesus was a *better* devotee than them.

 

What we call the Bible today has conflicting versions of the same incident, within the same book. For example, the versions of Matthew, John, Mark etc., contradict each other even on critical events like his crucification. So, why should I take the miracles described above seriously? Just like the rest of the Bible, they were also invented over 2 centuries after 30 CE. They have been embellished ever after. If you were to look for "miracles", then I would say that Sai Baba has a better track record than Jesus or anybody for that reason. Sai's devotees even claim that on instances he has brought the dead back to life. Do we take them seriously? Then why do we attach any more importance to the Bible that is so self contradictory? Let us not forget that religion has been a big business over centuries - more so with Christianity. "Miracles" were an essential sales promotion gimmick to convert the gullible. If Jesus had really performed miracles then why did he have to cry miserably "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" [Mark 15:33] which means, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

[theist 1]

karthik,

 

Bhaktivinode mentions his meat eating in his autobiography.Fish and goats, not cows.He did give it up at age 42, but he had be teaching on the Bhagavat and had written books such as Krishna-samhita while still partaking.*

 

As far as these so-called miracles go, to think that a Shaktya-vesa Avatar, who Prabhupada said came straight from Vaikuntha,could walk on water or bring some soul back into its recently departed human form, does not seem like such a stretch for me.

 

In fact I would be surprised to hear that he couldn't.Such small displays(relative to what He could have done)are exhibited just to increase the fledgling faith of those he was preaching to.

 

"...Why hast Thou forsaken me.." is the beginning to a Psalm that prophsied His crucifixtion.When I remember which one I'll post it.

 

I hear separation.Not sure what you hear.Prabhupada has taught that Jesus was in devotional transcendence on the cross.

 

*forgot to mention the book Hindu encounter with Modernity by Shukavak Das which is where I got this info.

 

[This message has been edited by theist (edited 07-11-2002).]

[karthik_v 0]

Theist prabhuji,

 

I am quite surprised that BVT ate meat even while practising spirituality. I have been very critical of Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat. Sure, eating cow's meat is terrible, but eating any meat is bad enough.

 

I must thank you for presenting that interpretation of Jesus's crying during crucification. It doesn't sound out of place for sure. Yet, my recent readings [which have been only a few months] on Christianity suggest that they assigned only literal meanings - nothing more. I am not against miracles either. I am just pointing out that it is impossible to tell miracle from propaganda, for we have not been witnesses.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Regarding Bhaktivinoda Thakur, his eating fish was prior to his manifesting the qualities of a sat-guru. The Bhagavatam says that just as fire may remain hidden in burning coals while covered by ash, so in the same way the liberated souls appear hidden in the material world. When the time comes, the coals manifest a blazing fire.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur never sanctioned the eating of meat. Rather he was playing the role of a conditioned soul who gradually developed bhakti and purity. In reality he was eternally pure, but he manifested this external appearance. In his autobiography he describes how he was a mayavadi, etc., in his early years. These are the ashes that cover the burning coals.

 

At no time did he ever say it was alright toeat fish or meat. Rather he took the position that "I was so fallen, I was attached to material sinful activities."

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-12-2002).]

[theist 1]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Theist prabhuji,

 

I am quite surprised that BVT ate meat even while practising spirituality. I have been very critical of Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat. Sure, eating cow's meat is terrible, but eating any meat is bad enough.

 

 

Well everyone shows a progression in spiritual practice.He simply liked to eat meat at one point and then later progressed past it.

 

JNdas has pointed out that he never tried to justify it.

 

 

[Shashi 0]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I must thank you for presenting that interpretation of Jesus's crying during crucification. It doesn't sound out of place for sure. Yet, my recent readings [which have been only a few months] on Christianity suggest that they assigned only literal meanings - nothing more.

The literal meaning is being the direct meaning. Lord Jesus is literally feeling separations like Lord Chaitanya is literally feeling same. Are you have some problem with the separation being as spiritual reality? Mayavadis having same problem.

 

 

[Shashi 0]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

What we call the Bible today has conflicting versions of the same incident, within the same book. For example, the versions of Matthew, John, Mark etc., contradict each other even on critical events like his crucification. So, why should I take the miracles described above seriously?

 

All are mentioning the crucifying. Versions may be differ but theme is same same. Like different versions about Lord Chaitanya. Are you rejecting Lord's Lila simply because different versions. Core is same same.

 

Like many peoples seeing one elephant from the different angles each. Versions will be differing. YOur thinking is that if many versions therefore you will not take elephant seriously. This is being miraclous logic!!!

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Shashiji,

 

Please consider the following arguments and then decide for yourself if there are contradictions in the accounts relating to the crucification of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection. Also, add to this the fact that Jesus finds no mention in the annals of the Romans or in the writings of the contemporary Hebrew, Greek and Roman historians. The only mention of Jesus in the Hebrew records is a passing one [without his name] and it talks of the crucifcation of a small-time apostate. Also, consider the argument that the cult of Jesus suddenly finds a mention a good 80 years after he was gone and it hinges on his resurrection for its survival. I leave the decision to your faculties. Please consider the following 3 parts in the url below:

 

1. The date of Jesus' crucification

2. Can Both of These Stories Be True?

 

http://outreachjudaism.com/resurrection.html#true

 

And also, Crucifixion/Resurrection Chart in the url:

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html

[karthik_v 0]

Did Jesus really exist? Did Mark, Matthew, Luke etc., ever meet Jesus? Or were they just frauds? Also, read the hilarious piece on the absurd cruelty of Jesus towards 2000 pigs, as portrayed by his disciples. Decide yourselves:

 

http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html

[theist 1]

Interesting sources karthik.Enjoy the reactions aparadhi.

[karthik_v 0]

Even Jesus' crying Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani [Mark 15:33], seems to be a plagiarism by the early Christian writers from similar words spoken earlier by King David: Eli, Eli, lamah azovtani [Psalm 22:2]. For your reading pleasure:

 

http://outreachjudaism.com/whojesus.html

 

Looks like even the so-called seperation that Jesus felt from his father, seems to be only a vicarious indulgence by the Christian plagiarists

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by theist:

Interesting sources karthik.Enjoy the reactions aparadhi.

Please Theist prabhuji,

 

Please don't curse me. Is there a way I can atone for this sin? Anything except crucification or conversion to Christianity is fine

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by theist:

Well everyone shows a progression in spiritual practice.He simply liked to eat meat at one point and then later progressed past it.

 

JNdas has pointed out that he never tried to justify it.

 

 

Was it before or after his initiation ?