Jesus about vedas according to buddhist scripture

[theist 1]

ram, it appears that slavery was an integral part of vedic varnashrama.That being true your question concerning Jesus needs to be rethought.

 

 

Prabhupäda: Südra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America. The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.

 

Room coversation.Varnashrama system must be introduced Feb 14, 1977 Mayapura

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Hari Bol J N Das prabhu and Shvu,

 

I am not sure that SB mentions Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Are you mentioning about the verse 1:3:24? If so, I am not sure it refers to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha. Here are my reasons:

 

As we know from history, Siddhartha's mother was Maya and father Suddhodhana. There was an Anjana who was his maternal grandfather. But, this verse doesn't say Anjana-pautra, but only says suta. Also, SGB, as per history, was born in Lumbini in Nepal and not Gaya. So, the Buddha in SB is not the same SGB. I am not saying that historians are correct in tracing the family lineage of SGB. There are several assumptions and they can be wrong. Since SP has accepted the western historians stance that SGB was born 2600 years ago, I am curious to know why he considers Anjana as his mother and Gaya as his birth place. Has he quoted any tradition? If so, I have no problem in accepting such a tradition over the speculations of the western historians. Here is the url I was talking about where Jiva Goswami seems to think that SGB was not the Buddha of SB [i don't know if this site is authentic]:

 

http://www.buddhaavatar.org/ba/

 

Please read the answer to the question: Is there more than one avatar incarnation of Buddha?

 

Hari Bol Theist prabhuji,

 

SG or Buddha didn't decry the vedas nor did he reject them. He only rejected them as THE AUTHORITY. In the oldest Buddhist traditions, including Mahayana [which came later], they do have Gayatri Mantra, which originates from Rk veda. Yes, SGB definitely challenged the ceremonial sacrificies, though he didn't reject meat-eating. In fact, he even allowed his renunciates to accept meat and eat them, provided they weren't cooked exclusively for them.

 

Oh yes, Jesus definitely supported slavery and even came out with codes. I am not blaming him. He, like Prophet(!) Mohammad, was a product of his times. Those were the times when the Jews were under the Roman empire, which institutionalised slavery. This is certainly an anti-Christian site, but I give it as reference only for convenience. I checked against the Bible and this site is accurate:

 

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/slavery.html

 

As a conformist Jew, who never once rebelled against the Jewish practices, Jesus did accept slavery as a normal thing in life. Just like he accepted many other things which we consider abominable today. I am sure that had Jesus been born in the 1960s, he wouldn't have supported slavery. I think it is a travesty to even talk of Jesus and Buddha [sG] on the same level. SGB rebelled against the system that had been corrupted. He stood for the truth and displayed courage. He rose beyond the ordinary trappings of race, creed and language. He pursued enlightenment and gave it to anyone [and didn't deny it to other races as Jesus did]. Jesus is no comparison to SGB on any of these counts. But for the ruthless Roman power and the unscruplous Vatican and all the inhuman inquisitions and wars, Christianity would have never been a religion to contend with. The success of that religion doesn't owe anything to Jesus or his theology, but to these uncivilised forces.

[karthik_v 0]

Theist prabhuji,

 

Prabhupäda: Südra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America. The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.

 

Oh, my God! Did SP really say this or is this a concoction by somebody in ISKCON? Don't you find this sickening and racist? Do you really support this and agree with this? Have you seen Amistad? What do you think of the Indians who revolted against the British? Some British governors thought that the Indians were uncivilised, worshipped satan, must be kept on a tight leash, are dark and ugly, are incapable of writing any worthy book, cannot rise above the level of an animal [that is eating, sleeping...] and must be "civilised". How do you feel about that? As an Indian, I never felt great to read that Saint, my left foot, Xavier called my ancestors dark brutes and felt that their women can be taken by the "civilized" Europeans while their men are to be burnt. Do you think that an African American would be thrilled to read this alleged writing of SP?

 

If he indeed write these words, I am wondering as to why he opened temples in Africa and initiated them as sannyasis. Why not just give them food and keep them "happy"?

 

You have said that slavery is accepted by the vedas. Can you show me even 1 reference from the 4 vedas or the principal 13 upanishads or even BG, in support of your claims? Please don't quote the words of SP alone. With due regards, I must point out that his words don't automatically become vedas. Vedas are apaurusya. Period.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

If so, I am not sure it refers to Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

 

 

Whether the Buddha incarnation stated in the Puranas refers to Siddhartha, or another buddha before him is not very relevant. Both more or less engaged in similar activities and teachings. Buddhism has existed much before Siddhartha, as it finds mention in countless Vedic scriptures, in references to previous ages.

 

The modern historians have clumped all buddhas together as one person, making it difficult to differentiate between them now.

[karthik_v 0]

Hari bol J N Das prabhuji,

 

The modern historians have clumped all buddhas together as one person, making it difficult to differentiate between them now.

 

This, I agree with you. Many buddhas have existed before SG. No doubt. Certainly, missionary historians have clumped together any name that sounds similar. Yet, in the SB verse in question, SP mentions about the SG who lived 2600 years ago. This is the period according to the historians that SG lived. So, is he not referring to the same SG? If so, then my question still remains valid.

[theist 1]

Didn't His Holiness Bhakti Prajna Kesava Maharaja write a book on this subject?I was told he disputed that the Buddha mentioned in SB was Siddhartha.

 

But the SB also mentioned the province of His birth as well as His mothers name.

 

But does anyone maintain that He taught following the vedas?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Bhakti-prajnana Keshava Maharaj (Srila Prabhupada's godbrother) wrote a booked titled "vaishnava-vijaya" in which he states Siddhartha is not the same buddha as mentioned in the Bhagavatam. I will try to post the section if no one else has it to post.

[shvu 1]

 

Other than one South Indian recension, no manuscript of the Mahaabhaarata lists Buddha among the avataars of Vishnu. The Harivamsha, an extension of the Mahaabhaarata, lists ten avataars of Vishnu, with the ninth avataar being Vyaasa and not the Buddha [Chapter 1.41]. The Maarkandeya Puraana, Vishnu Puraanaa, Vaayu, Brahmaanda and Kuurma believed to be among the oldest Puraanaas, do not list the Buddha as an avataar of Vishnu.

 

Agni Puraana 2.16, lists the ten popular avataars of Vishnu including the Buddha and specifically says he was the son of Shudhodana. Hence, there is no doubt that there was an opinion among some sections that Gautama Buddha [aka Sidhaarta] was an avataar of Vishnu, born to delude Daityaas. The general idea is that the Buddha came to be accepted as an avataar around 400 AD, for he finds mention only in later spurious insertions. According to the Varaaha Puraana 48.22, the Buddha was worshipped by some to attain physical beauty.

 

Now the puzzle is, why do the details of the Buddha in the Bhaagavatam differ? While there exist lists giving different details of the Buddha who was believed to be an avataar of Vishnu, there is no list that says there were 2 different Buddhas who were both avataars of Vishnu.

 

And the mystery continues...

 

Cheers

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

I am a bit confused here. What about Vishnu purana 3-17, 3-18. Does it not tell about the origins of Buddhism. Can anyone produce the corresponding verses.

[Priitaa 0]

 

We should remember that Srila Prabhupada boycotted the temple of Jagannatha at Puri because they would not allow entrance to his disciples.This was due to their racist and/or

sectarian contamination.

 

 

I realize this is an old post, but I 'bumped' into it by accident, and that was good because it may offer something helpful in my research for my web page. Therefore I ask you, as I never before heard that Prabhupada boycotted this temple, do you know when it happened? Can you tell me more about this? Are there any quotes?

 

Any info would be apprecicated. Thanks.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

 

[Priitaa 0]

 

Prabhupäda: Südra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America. The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.

 

Oh, my God! Did SP really say this or is this a concoction by somebody in ISKCON? Don't you find this sickening and racist? Do you really support this and agree with this? Have you seen Amistad? What do you think of the Indians who revolted against the British? Some British governors thought that the Indians were uncivilised, worshipped satan, must be kept on a tight leash, are dark and ugly, are incapable of writing any worthy book, cannot rise above the level of an animal [that is eating, sleeping...] and must be "civilised". How do you feel about that? As an Indian, I never felt great to read that Saint, my left foot, Xavier called my ancestors dark brutes and felt that their women can be taken by the "civilized" Europeans while their men are to be burnt. Do you think that an African American would be thrilled to read this alleged writing of SP?

 

If he indeed write these words, I am wondering as to why he opened temples in Africa and initiated them as sannyasis. Why not just give them food and keep them "happy"?

 

You have said that slavery is accepted by the vedas. Can you show me even 1 reference from the 4 vedas or the principal 13 upanishads or even BG, in support of your claims? Please don't quote the words of SP alone. With due regards, I must point out that his words don't automatically become vedas. Vedas are apaurusya. Period.

 

 

Forgive me, but I just could not let it go. It needs to be cleared up.

 

First, I do not believe that slavery was supported by the Vedas, tho that's another topic, somewhat.

 

As I understand it, Prabhupada is pointing out facts, that slavery is what happened in America, not that he is saying it is good America did it this way. Though he does say the black sudra's were causing disturbances, but there are white sudra's and they also cause distrubances. I am sure he would not omit them, they just were not the topic. So I next notice he points out no one bothered to train these black folks. They just threw them out into the world and said "good luck, you're gonna need it." So he would prefer they be trained properlly to become first class men. That was not available, so at least take care of them. But mostly here, he was showing that this is what came about, maybe even by nature, cuz the (very mundane) nature of man is to lord it over someone eventaully, (unless such persons become spiriutal of course), as the caste system tends to manifest even so-called naturally & in every single society, however inappropriately when people don't know the higher methods. (Though without a date reference, I don't know for certain Prabhupada said all this.)

 

The reason Prabhupada opened temples and initiated black sanyasis IS because he does not believe in slavery and the material caste system, but in something much higher.

 

Now, on to more of what Prabhuapda is saying here.

 

A common misunderstanding many devotees have is the difference beteen VAD (varanasrama dharma) and the highest, most transcendeanl science of Krishna consciousness. They often mix one with the other.

 

VAD is the caste system. Prabhupada said this. I have the quotes. :-) However, that was not on the top of his list. He did not come here to start VAD but to start transcendental Krishna consciousness. Now, to help some along, he sometimes would say to start a DIFFERENT 'type' of caste system, but he would simultaneously say we are not able to do it, that it is impossible for us to achieve. Anyway, that was secodary interest of his, not primary.

 

But to elaborate, what kind of caste system was he talking about? Actually, what Prabhupada wanted was not really caste at all. It is different from what most readers think of as 'caste.' First, Prabhupada repeatedly states that ANYONE can elevate themselves to the highest level in what he is speaking about. No one is doomed to be a life-long sudra, for example.

 

Next, when Prabhupada is speaking of controlling sudra's, we forget we are living in kali yuga and everyone is basically now a sudra, even if they dont like to admit it. :-) So what will they do who have this much control over someone? Exploit. Whereas in the real DIVINE varanashrama system, the persons "in charge" of sudra's were either pure devotees or running a close second. That is entirely different, and resulted in genuinely helping them. But in this day and age, most devotees can't handle maintaining the basics of their own life, what to speak of someone elses. Therefore, no one should think they have the right to control or supress anyone, regardless of birth or so-called caste or initiation.

 

I could go on about this, as I have done through research on it, but will close for now. All I can say is Prabhupada is not thinking or speaking in the ways we are. Therefore sometimes his words appear one way to us, when he actually had something much higher in mind. And what was more important to him is that we all become Krishna conscious and go back to Home, back to Godhead. THAT was his mission.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[theist 1]

Herre is where I got that.

 

 

 

Letter to: Syamasundara

--

Bombay

8 April, 1974

74-04-08

Puri, India

Dear Syamasundara Brahmacari,

Please accept my greetings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 3/4/74.

I have not visited Jagannatha Puri because my men are not allowed to see the deity. When you arrange that we can visit the temple with my disciples then I can come immediately. Now I am in India up until May 15 then I am going to Europe to visit in France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany etc., and then I will come back and remain until the end of August, and then go again to England, and the U.S. This is my program. I am still here until the 15th of May. I am going to Hyderabad on the 18th of April and then going to Tirupati. So from there I can go to Jagannatha Puri if arrangements can be made.

It is very regrettable that these European and American boys who are purely Vaisnava and who follow all principles are not allowed by the rascals to enter the temple. As stated in the Padma Puräëa: arcye visnau siladhir gurusu naramatir Vaisnave jati buddhir.

I do not know what makes the management take this attitude. If you can remove this restriction you will do a great service to the Gaudiya Vaisnava community. According to sastra anyone who wears tilaka and sikha and kunti over and above the Vaisnava dress or Vaisnava sannyasi must be accepted especially while chanting Hare Krishna mantra with bead bags. Kindly convince them and induce them to allow these Vaisnavas to enter Jagannatha Temple.

One friend in Orissa has offered to give us land in Bhubaneswar and I have a desire to construct a big Jagannatha temple there for our men if we are not allowed to enter Jagannatha temple in Puri. In Jagannatha temple people come from all the Indian states. Now when Jagannatha has expanded His jurisdiction over the whole world why the so called servants of Jagannatha should not allow them to see the Lord of the Universe? I don't know their philosophy.

We shall see that your copies of Back to Godhead are dispatched to you.

In conclusion, I shall come to Jagannatha Puri as you have kindly insisted, but only when they allow entry to all my disciples.

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

ACBS/sdg

[theist 1]

Prtha, the date was there though it appeared obscured.

 

 

Room coversation.

Varnashrama system must be introduced Feb 14, 1977 Mayapura

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

Thank you Thiest prabhu,

 

I am going to put this letter from Prabhupada on my web page. It will be great for preaching, because when more and more see the connection between Christ and Jagannatha, other connections will also be made, and it can help bring around Lord Caitanya's movement! At least, thats my hope.

 

YS,

Prtha dd