Christ in Vedas

[theist 1]

 

This term means sectarianism.

 

 

To distinquish and reach a conclusion on a relious topic based soley on my view of my religious book and without true broad spiritual realization.

 

I stand by the term.

 

Also I wonder what the different meanings to the words "shaktyavesa avatar" would exist (if any) between Madhvacarya and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

As I understand it(or think I do) Mahaprabhu's line is not one of strict dualism only without the oneness.

 

Not to argue over as it's acintya and doesn't fit to well into our human language forms. Certainly not into my lame attempted English.

 

I feel a need also to restate that I am not Prabhupada's real disciple or representative. So don't blame him or them for any of my mis-statements.

[Guest guest]

Hari Bol,

Without meaning to offend the followers of Jesus, I really doubt that he is mentioned in the Veda.

Besides that, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur has given his critique of Chrisitian Philosophy in Jaiva Dharma, which I shall not repeat here. But I would hope that Gaudiya Vaisnavas repect HIS opinion at least as much as that of the Christians. Thanks, Krsna-Balram das

[theist 1]

the difference between Christ and Christianity.

 

You sound like Srila Prabhupada's words on the subject are insufficent for you.

 

To each his own.

[Priitaa 0]

 

Hari Bol,

Without meaning to offend the followers of Jesus, I really doubt that he is mentioned in the Veda.

Besides that, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur has given his critique of Chrisitian Philosophy in Jaiva Dharma, which I shall not repeat here. But I would hope that Gaudiya Vaisnavas repect HIS opinion at least as much as that of the Christians. Thanks, Krsna-Balram das

 

 

Haribol Krsna-Balarama prabhu,

 

Christ and Christianity are not the same. This distinction is important because it is almost always ignored. The teachings of Christ have been drastically changed by the church fathers of the past. So of course the critique of Christian "philosophy" in the Jaiva Dharma by Bhaktivinode Thakur would be as it is, and we agree. We also know that Prabhupada would not contridict Bhaktivinode Thakura. Thus, while Prabhupada has taught to accept Jesus, he has not told us to become modern day Christians and follow that religion. So the person Christ, and the religion Christianity, are not the same entity. This needs to be cleared.

 

Next, regarding mention of Christ in the Vedas, read the following from the BhavisyaPurana, part of the MahaPurana:

 

[shalivahan, ruler over the Aryans, grandson of Vikramaditya, occupied the throne of his father. He vanquished the attacking hordes of Chinese, Parthians, Scythians and Bactrians. He drew a border between the Arians and the Mleacha (meat eaters), and ordered the latter to withdraw to the other side of India.]

 

ekadaa tu shakadhisho

himatungari samaayayau

hunadeshasya madhye vai

giristhan purusam shubhano

dadarsha balaram raajaa

 

"One day, Shalivahan, the chief of the Sakyas, went into the Himalayas. There, in the middle of the Land of the Hun, the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was situated on a mountain. His complexion was fair and he wore white garments."

 

ko bharam niti tam praaha

su hovacha mudanvitah

iishaa purtagm maam viddhi

kumaarigarbha sambhavam

 

"The king asked, 'Who are you sir?' 'You should know that I am Isha Putra, a Son of God,' he replied blissfully, 'and am born of a virgin.'

 

mleccha dharmasya vaktaram

satyavata paraayanam

iti srutva nrpa praaha

dharmah ko bhavato matah

 

"I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas (meat-eaters) and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.' Hearing this the king enquired, 'What are religious principles according to your opinion?'

 

shruto vaaca maharaja

prapte satyasya amkshaye

nirmaaryaade mlechadesh

mahiso 'ham samaagatah

 

"Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, 'O king, I came from a foreign land where there are no rules or regulations and evil knows no bounds. When the destruction of truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to the country of degraded people. Through me the sinners and delinquents suffered, and I also suffered at their hands. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood'.

 

mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo

mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate

maanasam nirmalam krtva

malam dehe subhaasbham

 

naiganam apamasthaya

japeta nirmalam param

nyayena satyavacasaa

manasyai kena manavah

 

dhyayena pujayedisham

suurya-mandala-samsthitam

acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-

athaa suuryacalah sada

 

"'Please hear O king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified and the body by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa, chant the holy names to attain the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, God as firm as the sun, Who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, justice, mental harmony, unity of spirit and meditation, O descendant of Manu, in the center of that light one will find their way to Isa, and should serve and worship Him as that immoveable Lord'."

 

[NOTE: Christ uses the word "Isa" here. Whether it is spelled Issa or Isa, it is the same. We should notice he first makes a distinction between that of Isa (God), and the Isa-Masih or one who came to preach about God. Isa is a name for Krishna that means the "Supreme Being" or "Supreme God." However, Isa das and Isa-Messiah both denote "servant" of God. Different language, same meaning.

 

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa

nityashuddha sivamkari

ishamasihah iti ca

mama nama pratishthitam

 

"Having placed the eternally pure, auspicious form of Isa, the Supreme Lord and giver of happiness, forever within my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas' own faith, and thus my name became the Isa-Masih.'

 

[NOTE: Christ refers to the "Form" (murti) of God as Isa, so it indicates Jesus believed in Deity worship, most likely as long as such worship was performed by sincere, honest, qualified priests/brahmana's.]

 

iti shrutra sa bhuupale

natraa tam mlecchapujaam

sthaapayaamaasa tam tutra

mlecchasthaane hi daarune

 

"After hearing these words and paying obeisances to that person who is worshipped by the mlecca's, the king humbly requested him to stay there in that most miserable land of Mlecchas."

 

svaraajyam praaptavaan raajaa

hayamedhan cikirat

rajyam krtva sa sasthyabdam

svarga lokamu paayayau

 

"King Salivahara, after leaving his kingdom performed an asvamedha yajna and after ruling for sixty years, went to heaven. Now please hear what happened when the king went to svargaloka." (Bhavishya Purana 19:20-33.)

 

Thus ends the second chapter entitled, "The Age Of Salivahara" of the story of Kali Yuga of the Caturyuga Khanda also called pratisarga-parva of the wonderful Bhavishya Maha Purana, 3191 Kaukikia Era or 115 A.D, ~ Srila Vyasa dev - literary incarnation of Lord Krishna.

 

----

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

 

well maybe you should keep in mind the difference between Christ and Christianity.

 

 

Thiest, you read my mind! I just posted the same point. ha And its one that is continually missed, so am glad I'm not the only one who saw it.

 

[yasodanandana 0]

i have read you with great pleasure... i agree completely, many thanks

[theist 1]

Haribol, I have often seen you post on that point. But somehow it gets missed over and over. This religion, Christianity, seems to have erected a veil over the truth of Christ that is very hard to bring down. But then many people prefer to rail against the veil than to recognize the Christ it obscures so I guess it serves its purpose.

 

It is such a simple point, and one I would have expected Prabhupada's students to have long ago easily grasped.

 

It's also funny how many people think I have a current or past Christian background. I accepted the divinity of Christ right before I moved into the temple and had never really been involved with a Christian church. I have never even read the Bible all the way through. I intend to though.

 

Hare Krsna

[Priitaa 0]

When you get ready to read the Bible all the way through (as I know these things take time & need to be penciled into a schedule), maybe consider getting one of the original versions from Aramic? I think the Essenes carry them. You can check out there web sites and email them. There are tons of essenes online.

 

Many may think you have a current or past church connection more than anything else, because they are under the impression that Christ and churches are one and the same. I, however, can tell from your posting that is not the case. No dogma in your posts. Plenty of dogma in the churches!

 

Its true that this concept of Christ as different from Christianity is something many don't get, but I was under the impression most of Prabhupada's movement got it. Yet you indicated his students may not have? My personal experience is not a problem with his disciples, but some Hindus, due to religious persecution from Christians, have a harder time accepting this. Maybe you had different experiences with ISKCON devotees, I don't know, but mine were mostly good to ok.

 

By the way, where is Myra? She is usally active on threads which discuss this topic. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theist 1]

I got bogged down in Leviticus if I remember right. It was also the King James version and I couldn't understand the olde english very well.

 

Same with Shakspeare. I have to read it over and over to get anything.

 

Life is hard in the slow brain lane. lol oh well.

 

Lately I have discovered the New International Version and find it much easier.

 

I think Myra wanted to talk about God more than defend her faith Hopefully she will reappear.

 

I know what you mean about the new bhaktas. I hope we aren't also building a veil and concealing Prabhupada.

[Priitaa 0]

I don't know about the bhaktas causing difficulty. The only problem I have noticed is from (some) devotees with Jewish pasts who read what Prabhupada has to say about Jesus, then turn around and state Prabhupada only says like this for preaching purposes since Christianity is a popular religion, but he does not really believe like this. As if Prabhupada would put something untrue in book after book that will continue on into the next 10,000 years, possibly longer than the 'poopularity' of Christianity. I dont buy it. He's telling the truth but they can't handle it, and are finding ways to hang onto their bodily concept of life as well as their former religion.

 

But those devotees who never had any problem with Jesus in the first place, not necessarily church-goers (and usually NOT church goers), just those who were trying to understand who Christ was and are favorable toward him, those devotees I never found difficulty with.

 

Jesus was an undercover Vaisnava and no one should make an offense to a Vaisnava.

 

[theist 1]

Yes that makes alot of sense.

[Guest guest]

 

To distinquish and reach a conclusion on a relious topic based soley on my view of my religious book and without true broad spiritual realization.

 

I stand by the term.

 

 

 

I find this point of view to be in sharp contrast with that of orthodox vaiSNava thinking. VaiSNavas historically do not consider any other scripture to be on par with Vedas; nor do they consider Vedas to be "my religious book," as if they were merely one among many religious scriptures, or that they were somehow limited and required other viewpoints to supplement them.

 

These latter views are more characteristic of new age Hinduism (a la Swami Vivekananda) than of genuine, vaiSNava vedAnta.

 

Getting back to the earlier point:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

It was mentioned that most vaiSNava-s do not accept that Jesus is any kind of avatAra, so the person who made this statement has just accused every vaiSNava sampradAya in existence of "mundane religious discrimination." It has been explained that one should not offend a vaiSNava on this thread. Yet, no one is concerned with the offense of accusing vaiSNavas of "mundane religious discrimination." Au contraire, Jesus is obviously an "undercover" vaiSNava, and not to agree with this viewpoint is offensive.

 

In other words, one can offend other vaiSNavas when they do not agree with us, but no one should disbelieve in Jesus, because that is an offense against a vaiSNava. Obviously, he is a vaiSNava, because not to belive this is an offense against him, and one should not offend vaiSNava-s. Q.E.D. Jesus is a vaiSNava.

 

 

As I understand it(or think I do) Mahaprabhu's line is not one of strict dualism only without the oneness.

 

Not to argue over as it's acintya and doesn't fit to well into our human language forms. Certainly not into my lame attempted English.

 

 

 

This is reminiscent of what mAyAvAdi-s say when requested to clarify whether mAyA exists or does not exist. Oh, neither they say, it is anirvacanIya, neither existing nor not existing, and one should not say anything about it.

 

I am similarly skeptical of all such attempts to state identity between two concepts, and then refrain from clarifying it by pleading "inconceivability" whenever it suits them.

[gHari 0]

Those who rely heavily on their minds to determine their opinions will never accept Jesus. They go to the grave vainly clutching their bags of words with absolutely no idea what the word 'heart' even means.

 

Put your cross away, this is Christmas; you can kill him at Easter.

 

I feel nothing but shame when such 'vaishnava' mentalists start their arrogant evil on the net. I separate myself from every one of them. I do not call them 'vaishnava'; can I read a book about natural child-birth, and then consider myself a mother? Neither can one read a book and then consider themselves vaishnava. The bag of words is simply pride of mind like any other field of knowledge; only now it is a jewel on the head of a cobra.

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda never disrespected Christ, nor have any of the acaryas. He has rightly chastised Christians. There is a gulf of difference. I don't doubt that he is very upset that some would use his words to prop up their evil attacks on Christ. It is obvious that such critics have no integrity, operating either from a platform of stupidity or prejudice. I say - send the jugglers back to the circus where they belong; let them juggle with the other clowns. Let them admire each other's pride in their external devotional poses and flowers from the Vedas, as they count and recount the booty in their bags of words.

 

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Excuse me Theist, I have to bolt…

 

"VaiSNavas historically do not consider any other scripture to be on par with Vedas…"

 

I think you must be right here. But based on evidence and not team spirit.

 

"… nor do they consider Vedas to be "my religious book," as if they were merely one among many religious scriptures, …"

 

This is so ambiguous it could mean different things.

 

NOT merely one… THE BEST.

 

"… or that they were somehow limited and required other viewpoints to supplement them."

 

ALL IDEAS are already evident in the Vedas. Prove Different.

[ancient_paztriot 0]

"It was mentioned that most vaiSNava-s do not accept that Jesus is any kind of avatAra…"

 

Um, I'm gonna put my big foot in my mouth here, but I think Theist feels the same way I do about Jesus (regardless of what he may have sounded like)…

 

He feels Jesus is an empowered Jiva soul. His birth was predicted in scripture, he lived like no ordinary man, he performed miracles, and he inspired others with religion.

 

The contention of this thread is whether Jesus was godhead or not.

 

I think Theist has already explained that he was one in spirit: Jesus was a pure devotee with a mission.

 

But godhead? No! (He was godhead in the sense of being a pure devotee)

 

Please calm down and be more coherent.

[theist 1]

Forgetfulness of Krishna is the disease, so let us keep ourselves always in Krishna Consciousness, and get out of the disease, that is healthy life. Yes, Lord Jesus was jivatattva. He is not Visnu tattva. When a jiva tattva becomes specifically empowered by the Lord, he is called saktyavesa avatara. Lord Buddha and Lord Jesus Christ were in this group of saktyavesa avatara.. But they were not in conditioned state when they appeared; they came to teach here. Letter to Aniruddha LA Nov. 14, 1968

 

 

So any questions still?

[theist 1]

 

I am very glad to learn that Lord Jesus Christ has approved our activities. Perhaps you have marked it in my preaching work that I love Lord Jesus Christ as good as Krishna; because He rendered the greatest service to Krishna according to time circumstances and society in which He appreared.

 

 

[theist 1]

 

So if anyone loves Krsna, he must love Lord Jesus Christ also. And if one perfectly loves Jesus Christ he must love Krsna. If he says, “Why shall I love Krsna? I shall love Jesus Christ,” then he has no knowledge. And if one says, “Why shall I love Jesus Christ? I shall love...”, then he has also no knowledge. If one understands Krsna, then he will understand Jesus Christ. If one understands Jesus Christ, you’ll understand Krsna.

 

 

How clear. How simple. I reject anyones view with a opposing position.

[Guest guest]

 

Those who rely heavily on their minds to determine their opinions will never accept Jesus. They go to the grave vainly clutching their bags of words with absolutely no idea what the word 'heart' even means.

 

Put your cross away, this is Christmas; you can kill him at Easter.

 

I feel nothing but shame when such 'vaishnava' mentalists start their arrogant evil on the net. I separate myself from every one of them. I do not call them 'vaishnava';

 

 

How quickly the point is changed by those who don't want to apologize for their bad behavior.

 

Theist insults vaiSNava-s who don't accept his view that Jesus is a vaiSNava. Then when I object to this insulting behavior, ghari turns it all around into a discussion of religious prejudice. Theist can insult other vaiSNava-s all he wants. They are mundane because they don't accept Jesus, and so on and so forth. But if I protest this, then I am an "arrogant evil" on the net.

 

If certain individuals had real humility, those individuals would simply apologize for their rash remarks. But we can't have that, now can we? Everything said by Prabhupada followers is right, even when it is wrong. So even if bad behavior is exhibited by them, we must not object in any way to it.

 

So, all VaiSNava-s besides those in Prabhupada's paramparA are mundane and guilty of religious discrimination. Theist indirectly said it, and nothing he says is wrong, because he accepts Prabhupada. And Prabhupada is always right. Therefore whatever said by those who believe in Prabhupada is also always right. Even if all other vaiSNava-s who do not agree are wrong. It is their fault anyway. They are not following Prabhupada Purana.

 

Similarly, there was some individual named Hari-das or something like that who also liked to criticize on this forum. His criticisms did not end with new-age Hinduism; he went after other vaiSNava-s too. It became obvious with each passing day that he knew little about Vedic culture, but that didn't stop him from criticizing other vaiSNava-s. Since other vaiSNava-s did not worship as he did, they were silly, superstitious, and had to be shown "the light."

 

This appears to be Prabhupada's unfortunate legacy: a movement of ignorant fanatics who criticize everyone else to cover up their own insecurities. While I find his writings fascinating and in general quite respectful, I see little of this culture and dignity in those who claim to follow him. But, never mind. I am an arrogant evil for pointing it out. Let me therefore join with Haridas, Theist, and others and make fun of all other poor unfortunate vaiSNava-s who are so backward and silly that they do not accept Jesus.

[Guest guest]

You certainly kept a long detailed list of all those who you are mad at, who have a different opinion then yours, and don't surrender unto you. Maybe you should be the one to appologize.

[gHari 0]

Now they are vaishnava-s? I see no vaishnava-s offended. You read a book. Now you are vaishnava? I see no vaishnava. I do not hear God in your words; I hear only the pompous ramblings of a vain logician.

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, Ghari. Followers of Madhva and RAmAnuja are vaiSNava-s. Their traditions have been around much longer than yours. Your own Caitanya MahAprabhu claims to be in same paramparA as Madhva. Yet MAdhvas do not accept Jesus as avatAra.

 

 

Now they are vaishnava-s? I see no vaishnava-s offended. You read a book. Now you are vaishnava? I see no vaishnava.

 

 

 

Your idea that pre-caitanya mAdhva-s all accepted Jesus as a saktyAvesa avatAra is nothing more than a convenient fiction. By your own definition, none of the vaiSNava-s prior to him are really vaiSNava-s because they do not accept Jesus. This is a completely arbitrary standard with no basis.

 

It's bad enough that you believe in something with no basis in sAstra - now you require others to believe it in order for them be considered "Vaishnavas?" This is a bizarre position to take, and it seems to me that if you would stop and think about what you are saying, you would realize it.

 

But, it seems that, once again, pride wins over humility, and we just can't have omnisicient ISKCON devotees admitting that they said something wrong. Theist should have addressed his remarks to Prabhupada followers specifically, and then we could have let the matter drop. Instead, he wants all vaiSNava-s to accept his views because Prabhupada said so.

 

 

I do not hear God in your words;

 

 

That is because I have the audacity to protest your bigotry. So naturally I am an arrogant evil.

 

 

I hear only the pompous ramblings of a vain logician.

 

 

 

I frankly do not see any evidence that you have any concept of what "logic" is.

 

I am frankly disgusted with this bad behavior of iskcon devotees against other vaiSNavas.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, Ghari. Followers of Madhva and RAmAnuja are vaiSNava-s. Their traditions have been around much longer than yours. Your own Caitanya MahAprabhu claims to be in same paramparA as Madhva. Yet MAdhvas do not accept Jesus as avatAra.

 

 

I never saaw Ghari say the followers of Madhava and Ramanuja are not Vaisnavas. Where did he say this? Show your proof. He never said this. You work very hard on this same topic that iskcon devotees do not accept Madhava and Ramanuja and their followers while we tell you we do,do, do. You also work very hard to express your disgust and hatred to iskcon devotees. Face it, that's the real topic. Every opportunity to fault find with iskcon devotees, making false acusations. Envy of Prabhupada's movement and his devotees.

 

 

I am frankly disgusted with this bad behavior of iskcon devotees against other vaiSNavas.

 

 

Yet you keep coming back here to fight with us. Some people take great pleasure in fighting. ITs a form of sense gratification.

[Guest guest]

Hello! Mr.M, No hard feelings . I understand you would like to know more about PRAJAPATHY.

I recommend you to go thro a book by Mr.Arvindhaksha Menon named "DIVINE HARMONY" released at DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE, MURINGOOR PO, CHALAKUDY, TRICHUR, KERALA - 680316

You can get the book for INR Rs.50 approx. thro VPP post, if you put a letter to the above address. Kindly address it to the Director, Divine retreat centre.

This should strengthen the TRUTH who is non other than JESUS CHRIST.

Regards pals

C

 

[Guest guest]

 

You certainly kept a long detailed list of all those who you are mad at, who have a different opinion then yours, and don't surrender unto you. Maybe you should be the one to appologize.

 

 

Hmm, I didn't see that at all. It sounded to me like the person you are responding to, was simply objecting to some of the iskcon types like Ghari who imply that other Vaishnavas aren't Vaishnvas because those Vaishnavas don't accept Jesus.

 

That's pretty narrow-minded of iskcon, imho.

 

OH, and as for the proof, here it is, straight from iskcon-ghari:

 

"Those who rely heavily on their minds to determine their opinions will never accept Jesus. They go to the grave vainly clutching their bags of words with absolutely no idea what the word 'heart' even means.

 

Put your cross away, this is Christmas; you can kill him at Easter.

 

I feel nothing but shame when such 'vaishnava' mentalists start their arrogant evil on the net. I separate myself from every one of them. I do not call them 'vaishnava'; can I read a book about natural child-birth, and then consider myself a mother? Neither can one read a book and then consider themselves vaishnava. The bag of words is simply pride of mind like any other field of knowledge; only now it is a jewel on the head of a cobra."

 

This was posted earlier in the thread, and clearly indicates iskcon-ghari's opinion that those who do not accept Jesus are not Vaishnavas, and are guilty of so many vices. Since it is well known fact that other Vaishnava thinkers like Madhva and Ramanuja don't praise Jesus as he and his fellow iskcon types do, the conclusion is clear.

 

Maybe your problem is that you are so deluded by your own opinions that you cannot read clear English. That's too bad, but it's pretty much par for the course in iskcon. SO I guess you are not alone.