Christ in Vedas

[Guest guest]

 

all I need. Anonymous guests wants to overide Prabhupada. Like someone will accept you over him.

 

 

Jesus is not God. Jesus is not Krishna. Attacking me will not change any of this. He may be a very respectable saint, but he is not God.

 

It's wrong to change and twist things around just to sell your religion to others.

[theist 1]

Our 'conversation' has ended.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

I heard that a certain Pandit has submitted that the Kalki is none other than Prophet Muhammad. The Pandit may be correct but not entirely. The Kalki Puran might be refering to other very significant events besides the 10th Avatar since the birth of Shri Krishna. It is now Krishna Era 5228. (Pls refer to www.divinelovetrust.org) A long period has passed during which the known religious history of the world unfolded. Maybe the learned Pandit should have investigated the prophecies of the Kalki Puran in the light of the coming of others besides Muhammad, like the Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus Christ etc. I am sure all these great Figures came from the same source and would have been mentioned by the Parasara Muni. To have ascribed all the prophecies found in the Kalki Puran to Muhammad alone might be premature. Buddha has been mentioned at least in the Vishnu Puran. In the same vein holy books of other religions e.g. the Torah of the Jews refer to the coming of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ refers to His own return in the Gospels. Some scholars have mentioned that the Bible also refers to the coming of Muhammad besides the second coming of Christ. Therefore it is not impossible that the Kalki Puran refers to Muhammad as well as the others. Surely the author of the Kalki Puran was not a narrow minded Seer but was an all embracing divine Prophet.

 

Let us see this matter in terms of time in one instance. Shri Krishna was born at the end of the Treta yug and His ascension inaugurated the Kali Yug of 4800 solar* years. The Vishnu puran also tells us that Shri Krishna lived for 126 lunar years. This means that Kali yug has run (5228 – 126) 5102 lunar years. Converting this to solar years, it is 4959 years. If Kali has run 4959 years then it should have begun in 2956BC. Which year did it then it end? In (4800-2956)=1844!

 

[*Please note that in ancient times years were lunar, solar etc having 355 for lunar, 365.25 for solar and 360 days according to the Purans and the Manusmrti. For all practical and scientific purposes we can be sure it was the solar year that was meant taking into consideration the prophecies were meant for a future scientifically advanced people. The confusion as to the length of Kali (480,000 solar years) arises from the fact that the order of the length of the yugs is mentioned in the reverse as opposed to the order of the yugs themselves. This was the practice in writing sequence of numbers in ancient sanscrit. To correct the anomaly certain calculations beyond the scope of this write up were applied. Some pundits are agreed that logically the length of Sat, Dwapar, Treta and Kali are 1200, 2400, 3600 and 4800 respectively including their santhi and santhyamsa periods.]

 

From another angle, the Vishnu Puran mentions that the Buddha would appear in the middle of the Kali yug. Buddhist scholars are in agreement too, at least some of them. It is Buddhist Era 2547 now. The date of birth of the Buddha is placed around 563BC. If Kali yug is 4800 years then the middle of the Kali yug would be, (2956 – 2400), 556BC. This calculation is just to add credibility to the fact that Kali cannot be that ridiculously long 480,000 years which is enough to kill enthusiasm in any believer of the Kalki. Of course all the above information is subject to question and one can argue this way or that way depending on ones inclinations. Let us just investigate with an open mind. 1844AD is also an important year for some sects of Christianity as below.

 

The Church-Historic Perspective understands the Book of Revelation to be a prophetic description of the church era, the time between the first advent of Christ and His second advent at the end of time. Critics of the Church-Historic Perspective suggest that adherents of this perspective tend to manipulate the time symbols in the Book of Revelation to coincide with significant dates in their own history so that it appears that their movement fulfills the Revelation’s prophecies. For example, Uriah Smith of the Seventh Day Adventists concluded that all the time symbols of the Book of Revelation (and the Book of Daniel) point to the year 1844 AD—a significant date in the history of that Movement. http://www.lcoggt.org/

 

1260AH is a significant year for Shi’as. This year is mentioned in the Bible too. Its corresponding Gregorian year is 1844AD! Check the book of Daniel.

[gHari 0]

If we note that there are exactly 461 dimples on a regulation golf ball; then in a sleeve of four balls there will be precisely 4 X 461 = 1844 dimples. Therefore we can conclude that Cassius Clay is also Kalki avatar, a reincarnation of Mohammed, and indeed the founder of the Seventh Day dudes' church in Christendom. How's that for amazing?

[theist 1]

So then "Move like a butterfly and sting like a bee" is really and instruction to engage in sankirtana while killing the infidels.

 

It's all so clear now.

 

Gotta go work on my shuffle.

[Guest guest]

With all due respect, I can accept Jesus is the son of God and God is Krishna but I find it difficult to believe Jesus is Krishna incarnate, and suspect you are mistaken here. Jesus is jiva tattva, the closet he can come to the post of God is as an empowered shaktiavesa avatara which makes him tightly connected to God, thus what Christ speaks is nondifferent then an instruction from God for those people of that time, place and circumstance. There is one quote where Prabhupada says Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna, but if you read all of it I'm pretty sure he clarifies that Jesus is not Krishna but a jiva soul who is empowered. After that one, all other quotes say Jesus is not God but son of God, so this is where I think you are making a mistake when you refer to Jesus as Krishna. No offense intended. You may be attached to that concept, but I sincerely think it is a mistake.

[theist 1]

One and different my friend, right?

 

Saktyavesa avatars are also refered to as incarnations of Krsna. Kapila, Buddha,Prithu,Dattatryea, Narada, Rsabha and countless others.

[Guest guest]

Wasn't Prabhupada a shaktiavesha avatara? He made it clear he was not Krishna.

[theist 1]

When undifferentiated oneness because dominate one may have to lay heavy emphasis on the duality. But that duality doesn't negate the oneness as I understand it, rather it co-exists. One does not cancel out the other.

 

Prabhupada taught SIMULTANEOUS oneness and difference.

 

Acintya.

 

Someone who doesn't twinge when he hears Buddha called an incarnation but does when Jesus is so called is actually exposing his own mundane religious discriminations.

[Guest guest]

Simultaneously one yet DIFFERENT from (God). It's not a matter of where we choose to put the emphasis, its a fact. Otherwise, wouldn't we be like the mayavadis who believe once they become pure, they become Krishna too?

[theist 1]

Do you even know?

 

I have always understand that Jesus is Krsna's servant and have NEVER stated otherwise.

[Guest guest]

My point is, that Jesus can't be Krishna's servant yet Krishna incarnate. I'm not trying to offend. This is what I have read in Prabhupada's books.

[Guest guest]

Haribol, Acintya bheda bheda tattwa is nicely described by the acaryas, and cannot be understood otherwise, because acintya means inconceivable. Our minds cannot absorb such things.

 

This is not mayavada, because we have distinction. It is really quite simple. In quantuity, Krsna alone is God, but in quality, all the acaryas, saktiavitars, Lord Jesus Christ and His Mother Mary as well, all these folks have the same quality of divinity.

 

The purpose of Krsna and His unalloyed servants and associates in the same, that the entire spectrum of living beings come to the wakeful state of swarupa siddhi, the prefection of knowing and acting in our real identity (which is empowered as well). Krsna wans us to hear His song, and Jesus and Prabhupada and Mary all sing this song as they hear from Krsna. The purpose is non-different, the same song is sung. The difference is that Krsna is the centerpiece of the song, and the author and original composer, while the devotees cover the song expertly.

 

Many covers even exceell the original, and sometimes we see that Krsna is actually surpassed in purpose, and this is exemplified in the form of Sri Chaiotamnya mahaprabhu. He is more merciful that Krsna, and Lord Nityananda is even more compassionate (ie Jagai and Madhai) that Sri Gauranga.

 

No, it is not mayavada, it is gospel, meaning good news. God is not a vacuum that is unattainable. The desire to be God can even be fulfilled by devotional service in that we can even exceed the compassion of Krsna by giving Him to everyone without distinction whether they deserve or not. Krsna said to arjuna, "because you are my friend, here is the nectar", but chaitanya gave such nectar to his enemy the Kazi, Lord Jesus gave to Pilate and dismas, haridas gave to those whose only desire was to rub all vestiges of vedic culture.

 

This Krsna Consciousness, covered by the main theology of a-b-b-t, is purely unique in that God, even though his dominance is never in doubt, becomes the dominated, comes under the control of his unalloyed servant. No thunderbolts, no white-light that can never be seen lest we die, none of that unapproachable, mystery nonsense.

 

Damodhara lets us tie him up with illusory love, lets us think of him as a helpless child (or a henpecked husband, a loving father, or a wrestlin partner, even as an opposing general who we try to kill on the righteous battlefield).

 

Unique, the most pure of theological doctrine.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

Thank you. I understand the sameness or unity of consciousness between Jesus and Krishna (or Mother Mary, great sages, etc), habing the same qualities, having swarupa sidhi, having oneness of purpose. What I find hard to accept is that Jesus is an incarnation of Krishna. The only quote I ever read where Prabhupada said this, he later explained it, if I remember properly, to mean since Christ was empowered by Krishna as shaktiavesha avatara, therefore one in purpose and consciousness (unity, not the same personality), this was what he meant by Jesus being an incarnation. All other quotes, Prabhupada always clearly stated Jesus was jiva soul. If I'm not misunderstanding Prabhupada I want to know, show me quotes to as evidence that I am not understanding. Then I will accept.

[Guest guest]

Haribol. Srila Prabhupada cannot justify a false doctrine. He will not say Jesus is Krsna because Jesus denies that He is the Father.

 

The problem is another complete topic. Jesus was artificially given the status as the Supreme Lord by politicians who thought this would better control those who claimed him as their teacher. Jesus is not god, he is who he is, who he says he is, and verified by all who know him as he is.

 

Srila Prabhupada never gives Lord Jesus an artificial recognition as something he is clearly not. Christian theology is largely useless and actually an anti-theology if they maintain that the father and the son have somehow merged or that they were always the same being without distinction. They nullify the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ by failing to recognize that there are two thrones in the spiritual world, guru and gauranga. They cannot deveolp love that jesus has for the father, what he wants from his wards, if he is the father. Thoise who believe that jesus and krsna are the same being ignore his teachings and are the ultimate apostate, anti-christs, teaching only opposition to theology.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahak

[theist 1]

 

We have great respect for Lord Jesus Christ. We accept him as powerful incarnation of Krishna, as much as we accept Lord Buddha.

 

 

Our personalities are also Krsna but as individualized jiva's. We are not strict dualists.

 

The trick is to grasp and hold both conceptions simultaneously. Perhaps this gets lost when we try to speak.

 

Krsna is ever independent and we are ever dependent.

[Guest guest]

 

Someone who doesn't twinge when he hears Buddha called an incarnation but does when Jesus is so called is actually exposing his own mundane religious discriminations.

 

 

 

Buddha is referred to as an avatAra in bhAgavatam. What purANa mentions that Jesus is an avatAra?

 

[theist 1]

read the above.

 

Do you think some Purana's or any one or group of holy books can contain the number of avatars of God?

[Guest guest]

"Buddha is referred to as an avatAra in bhAgavatam. What purANa mentions that Jesus is an avatAra?"

 

puranas mention only 10 avataras.... but krsna in the gita says that his manifestation are infinite... then in the same gita we find the features of god and his representatives and manifestation.

 

In this way, if we see the characteristics, the behaviour of god, of the guru, of the vaishnava in a person of another scripture and religious culture we recognize him even if this manifestation of god, of the guru, of the devote does not belongs officially to our group or sect.

 

many westerners have recognized the sanctity of srila prabhupada and vaishnavas even if they were coming from a non christian culture... and christianism, as it is developed until now, is much more sectarian then hinduism

[Guest guest]

 

read the above.

 

Do you think some Purana's or any one or group of holy books can contain the number of avatars of God?

 

...take the essence...SP letter to Krsnadasa 1972

 

 

 

namaskAram

 

The question is not whether purANa-s mention all avatAras of bhagavAn or not. The question is, if a particular entity is not claimed to be an avatAra of viSNu in sAstra, then on what basis do you claim otherwise, to the point of criticizing those who do not accept your view?

 

You claimed earlier that those who accept buddha as avatAra while refusing to similarly accept Jesus were guilty of "mundane religious discrimination." This is a very bold claim to make against many senior vaiSNava devotees who quite possibly you could be learning from instead of criticizing. I can say with confidence that I have seen no mention by any vaiSNava AcArya-s in any of the main sampradAya-s that Jesus is an avatAra of bhagavAn. Even in writings of Sad-gosvAmis, which I believe form the core of your own tradition, I have seen no mention of this anywhere.

 

As there are other vaiSNava-s who reserve the right to degree with the alleged "avatAra-hood" of Jesus, I certainly think you are not in a very good position to proselytize on this point - at least, not unless you can furnish objective proof. The title of your posting, "Prabhupada Purana," suggests to me that you require others to believe in Jesus because your guru did. But other AcAryas have their own beliefs - do you accept other beliefs different from those of your guru because they come from other vaiSNava-s? If not, why do you expect them to accept your guru's beliefs?

 

This frankly appears to be a double standard. You are entitled to your views, but you should not criticize those who disagree with them, unless you can provide evidence to backup your claims.

 

jai SrI kRSNa

 

[Priitaa 0]

Are you asking about Avatar, or shaktyavesavatar? Because they are different, as you probably know. Avatar being Vishnu tattva, shaktyavesh being jiva tattva but especially empowered by Krishna. I get the feeling you are asking if we, the Hare Krishna devotees, believe Jesus is Avatar, which I do not. Thiest does. I respect his beliefs and I will leave that part of the discussion up to him.

 

As for myself, I do care only what Prabhupada, the pure devotee, has to say on this topic. He is my authority and we all must speak from authoritative sources. Othrewise it is merley concoction of course. And yes, there are other autortative sources, I do not deny that. We who have accepted initiation from Prabhupada (or those who wished they had, thus accepting him), should not be fickle regarding whose words we believe and accept.

 

For the past 25 + years, everytime I turn around someone is insisting I give up what I believe and surrender unto their belief, from Christians to Hindus to New Agers. Even if it is (so called) open mindedness. If I dont have the same definition of "open minded" as they do, I am labled close minded, even though I am not. And Hindus too have tried to convert me to their guru. I am not saying you are doing this, I just was under the impression Hindus would encourage someone to stay dedicated to their guru. Instead they feel challenged by his power of authoritativenss. But he is not a threat. Many of the points many think are a threat, are not the points he is making at all. Anyway, for us, its not that now, because Prabhupada's vaphu is gone, we change our mind and loose faith in him as if vani is insufficient. Its not. And I think you are understanding of all this.

 

However, other gurus such as those you mention, if they meet up to the Vedic standards of pure devotees, I would also care what their belief on Jesus is too. Its not that they are written off, most pure devotees are ultimately in agreement or come to similar conclusions. Prabhupada of course, will always come first for his disciples and devotees.

 

For me the argument is not that Jesus is God. I have no problem with him as son of God. We are all sons and daughters of God anyway. Should one be fortunate enough to be pure, I dont care what religion he propagates according to time, place and circumstance, as long as he is a Vaisnava in his heart and knows what he's doing. At the very least, he is elevating people so some day, some birth, they can come to Krishna.

 

By the way, most modern day Christians don't know their own religion, as much of Christ's original teachines have been changed by church leaders, etc. Therefore I humbly suggest not to evaluate Christ the person according Christianity, the religoin. Or by much of anything most modern day Church goers may have told you about him. They can't know what was hidden from their eyes.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

As for myself, I do care only what Prabhupada, the pure devotee, has to say on this topic. He is my authority and we all must speak from authoritative sources. Othrewise it is merley concoction of course....

 

For the past 25 + years, everytime I turn around someone is insisting I give up what I believe and surrender unto their belief, from Christians to Hindus to New Agers.

 

 

I do not care to make you give up anything. I am responding to the rash statement that those vaiSNavas who do not accept Jesus as an avatAra are guilty of "mundane religious discrimination."

 

If you say you believe Jesus is an avatAra (or saktyAvesa avatAra) because your Prabhupada said it, then that is fine. But you people should not be pointing fingers at others who are not Prabhupada followers because they do not believe it. Not unless you can furnish objective evidence.

 

Buddha is listed as an avatAra in sAstra, and so there is no excuse to not accept it. There is no mention of Jesus as an avatAra of any kind, and so his being one is purely a matter of your own guru's opinion, and one is free to disagree.

 

Anyway, I am speaking from the position that one should follow what is given in sAstra, in contrast to someone who is speaking that "never mind what sAstra says, my guru says this, so anyone who does not believe it is mundane..." etc. I object to such fanatical finger-pointing, and I object to the dishonesty inherent in trying to turn that into a debate of one's guru's merits, which it is not.

 

[yasodanandana 0]

in the gita and in the scriptures there's listed the qualities of god, the qualities of representatives of god, saints, devas... and asuras.

1)what if we recognize one of these persons basing our judgement on the qualities listed by the shastra?

2)otherwise.. why gita teachs these features, this "investigation method", this meter of judgement if the only concern is if this devotee, avatara, demon and so is listed in the vedas?

3)the vedic religions (now included in "hinduism") are based on the relationship guru-disciple.... if a bona fide guru says something, it is very difficult to avoid his opinion for the sake of the freedom of thinking. So, discussing with non prabhupada followers, it is not so good to say : "jesus is god because prabhupada says it.... and you shut up!!" ... but it is also a big problem if the one who think different from the pure devotee do not feel it as a problem and do not examinates his theories and beliefs after receiving these important news..

 

A: "the X guru says that...."

B: "who cares?"

 

it is against the principle of religion.... or B demonstrates that X guru is a fake or that A have not read or listened well

[mahak 0]

guest said

"I do not care to make you give up anything. I am responding to the rash statement that those vaiSNavas who do not accept Jesus as an avatAra are guilty of "mundane religious discrimination."

 

I dont think I got that vibe, but there is something to consider here. The vaisnava comes in three catagories, kanistha, madhyama, and uttama adhikari.

 

Kanistha adhikaris, are beginners in devotion to The Supreme Lord. Their (our) ability to recognize who is devotee and who is demon is very flawed. They do not have clear vision, and sectarianism is fully present in such a stage. Such sectarianism requires rigid keeping inside the walls of churchesm mosques and temples.

 

As one advances through the stages, vision as to who is God and who is not, who loves God and who does not, all this stuff gets cleared, gradually.

 

Recognition of Lord Jesus as avatar (Shakti or otherwise, not important at this level) is evident in some who are universally accepted as advanced Vaisnavas, such as Srila Prabhupada and two of His predecessors, Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinode. Kanisthas are expected to accept the version of the advanced devotees, otherwise, they stay stuck in sectarianism of the neophyte stage of devotion.

 

So, I would not state that Vaisnavas who do not recognize Lord Jesus Christ as empowered representation of Lord Visnu (definition of shaktivesa avatar) are guilty of religious discrimination, but I would say that their vision is clouded by sectarianism.

 

Jesus Christ said this as well in so many words. His disciples (beginners) were in anxiety about the "competition" asking what to do about those who were preaching but not their group members. Jesus stated that those who were not against Him were with Him. There are simple ways for a vaisnava to clear up this point, what anti-vaisnava messages does Jesus teach. If none can be cites, then one has to accept him as with the program, despite obvious cultural and social differences.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

[Priitaa 0]

Yes, as I indicated, I did not feel you are trying to make me, or anyone, give up anything.

 

Please dont mix my post up with the one stating those who dont accept Jesus as an avatAra are guilty of mundane religious discrimination. My post had nothing to do with that.

 

I do not, however, appreciate being referred to as "You people." We do not pretend to be practicing Hinduism, we do not pretend our guru is the only pure devotee, we do not pretend to have the corner market on anything. As I have tried to explain, no one is pointing fingers that our guru is the only pure devotee or lineage. If that is how others perceive us, they do not know us and should make a thorough study of Prabhupada's books first. And if you want evidence of Prabhupadas exalted position, we will happily furnish it. What specific evidence are you looking for? We can give anything because he meets all requirements without a doubt.

 

No one is saying never mind what shastra says. Of course, the understanding needs to be there that no one can properly understand shastra without a guru to link him up. Our guru does not say anything contradictory to shastra. The opinion of a pure devotee should not be confused with the "opinion" of persons like me, you, or anyone else. Our gurus opinion is perfect as is any pure deovtees opinion, even if they are not in our lineage.

 

Also, Avatara and saktyavesa avatAra are not in the same exact category as you seem to be putting them. This alone could be the difference of understanding. One is jiva tattva, one is vishnu tattva. Mahaksa is right that for the uttama this is not so important. Since this thread currently is about the position of Christ as a major issue, I felt it necessary to point out the difference for us Kanisthas. With that said however, we are not advocating competition or sectarianism. In the long haul, these things do indeed get cleared, if we want them cleared.