nirvisesa -sunyavadi?

[theist]

>>In response to this, Theist wants to talk about milk-drinking,...<<

 

Which you didn't answer. The point is while you take the stance of comdemning their meat eatting(and I do as well), you may yourself be a supporter of cow slaughter by drinking milk in the West. I don't know if you do or not that's why i asked.

 

If you do you may want to address your support for the veal industry and the slavery, torture and premature death by slaughter for meat, for the milk cows that you claim to care so much about.

 

If you still drink milk from unprotected cows then you can save your speeches on cow protection. They ring hollow in my ears.

[gHari]

K,

 

It was like a sensational trash magazine title. If you are preaching to Christians here, then I would suggest that such eye-grabbers may well only generate anger from them, as their guru is so insulted.

 

My understanding differs quite from the various Churches' and scholars' views of what the religion is, even though I did two years of devotional service within such an organization. Fortunately, great men like Srila Bhaktivinoda have attempted to bring them back to the path.

 

The validity of Jesus is beyond debate, and is indeed beyond the purview of mentalists addicted to debate. It is not a head religion, but a heart religion. Actually every religion is a heart religion; the head nonsense is just a way to kill the silly arrogant mind.

 

If you accept that all Vedic injunctions will be appeased by following Bhagavad-gita 18.66, then you should accept that surrender should make one vegetarian. Surrender is the lesson taught repeatedly by Christ. It was a very simple teaching, blown up along the way by the various minds that needed to satisfy their egos and curiosity.

 

No one can tell me that Christ is not valid. Like we say about Caitanya, the proof of the pudding lies beyond the syllogisms of the mind.

[krishna_s]

 

>>In response to this, Theist wants to talk about milk-drinking,...<<

 

Which you didn't answer. The point is while you take the stance of comdemning their meat eatting(and I do as well), you may yourself be a supporter of cow slaughter by drinking milk in the West. I don't know if you do or not that's why i asked.

 

If you do you may want to address your support for the veal industry and the slavery, torture and premature death by slaughter for meat, for the milk cows that you claim to care so much about.

 

If you still drink milk from unprotected cows then you can save your speeches on cow protection. They ring hollow in my ears.

 

 

 

Theist, you get an answer to your question when I get an answer to mine.

 

Rest assured I have no fear of answering any questions you have about milk drinking or whatever. My conscience on this point is quite clean - I do look quite carefully into what I buy before I buy it.

 

I just object in principle to people like you who ignore everything I write, only to ask tangential questions with little if any relevance to what is being discussed. You demand answers from me, but you refuse to address any questions I have aired on this forum. Answer my questions and then I will answer yours. Continue to ignore my objections and I will leave you to your speculations.

 

Just as an aside, whether I condemn or do not condemn someone's meat-eating is not the point. The point is that the scriptures clearly condemn it, which is why contemporary Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious tradition according to Vedic literature. You can go on and rail all you want about any alleged hypocrisies in my behavior (that being a typical ISKCON tactic), but what the scriptures say remains the same. And this has been my whole point all along.

 

But you and gHari want to turn this away from scriptural considerations and more into an issue of some perceived personal problem I allegedly have against Christianity. I have little respect for that sort of dishonesty. I have made it abundantly clear that the scriptures take a position. If I'm a hypocrite as you allege, that position still does not change. If ISKCON devotees hadn't managed to so muck up the issue regarding Vaishnavism and Christianity, I would not have to point it out. And if their speculations had not been so difficult to defend, you would not have to turn this into a character debate, as many fanatics do when they paint themselves into a corner with their unfounded speculations.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

[theist]

Chant and be happy

[krishna_s]

 

If you are preaching to Christians here, then I would suggest that such eye-grabbers may well only generate anger from them, as their guru is so insulted....

 

The validity of Jesus is beyond debate, and is indeed beyond the purview of mentalists addicted to debate....

 

No one can tell me that Christ is not valid. Like we say about Caitanya, the proof of the pudding lies beyond the syllogisms of the mind.

 

 

 

I can't help but note that, once again, you have offered no reply to Bhaktivinod Thakura's criticisms of Christianity in that Tattva-Viveka excerpt previously posted (twice now in this very thread). But of course, you don't seem to have any problem with what he wrote, only the fact that I pointed out that he wrote it.

 

Not only that, but you don't really seem to have any idea what I wrote, since your only concern demonstrated above is the good character of Christ, which was not a subject of any of my postings. If you aren't going to read what I write, then why bother responding? A position that is refuted by scripture should be retracted by men who are honest; ignoring such scriptural considerations and knocking down strawmen does you no credit.

 

For what it's worth, you are a hypocrite. When you couldn't respond to my objections, you tried to play the "Prabhupada" card by implying that I did not value his teachings. But then you tried to quote Bhaktivinod Thakur when you thought he supported your position, only to ignore him when his actual comments about Christianity were revealed.

 

Furthermore, when I pointed out, from a scriptural standpoint, the practices in contemporary Christianity which make it unacceptable from a Vedic perspective, you say I am insulting Christ, being rude, etc. But then you yourself say things like:

 

"Sometimes we are so dull, naturally, that we cannot understand."

 

"Will one be swan-like or ass-like? But then, does one have a choice?"

 

Obviously, you have no problem hurling real insults back at me. Then again, I'm no Christ. So maybe you feel that hurling insults at ordinary jiivas is acceptable when a rational, evidence-based response escapes one.

 

At least if you were a maayaavaadii, I could argue that you are just being rude to yourself.

 

I'm obviously not going to get a response from you that has anything to do with what I wrote. And you obviously aren't going to extricate yourself from this discussion without trying to publicly convince everyone that I'm guilty of all sorts of evil character flaws, as if that somehow changed the scriptural injunctions and their implications.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

The fundamentalist approach to spirituality is just as ugly regardless of what tradition it supposedly represents. The fundamentalist finds no room for any other approach to divinity but their own and they have their scriptures to point to which they use as justification for their position.

 

Contrary to your assertions, you have not demonstrated your position that those who eat meat can make no spiritual advancement. Citing the manu samhita where it states the number of births and deaths one must undergo do to such acts doesn't cut it. That we are bound by action and reaction is a given - at least to those following Vedanta. But what constitutes a complete block for one to make any tangible progress toward moving beyond the karmic bonds is another thing altogether. Don't confuse the two. Please try again on this one if you think you can find better sastric support for your claim. BTW, will you also ignore logic and reason as well as sense perception in this regard. You have been silent on the content of my posts except to say that I have avoided the issues you have raised.

 

You have summarized your points into five - here's a short reply on each.

 

1) Contemporary (i.e. today) Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path according to Vedic culture, what with its views on animal-killing, its attempt to identify Jesus as God, its attempt to assign a material body to God, etc.

 

First off I would say you have no real concept of what Christianity is or what it's beliefs are. You are a typical devotee whose view of Christianity is filtered through your own understanding based on Vedic Scriptures. This approach is flawed, just as the approach of the Christian critic is flawed when he/she tries to understand Vedic thought from within the confines of his/her Christian perspective and scriptural bias. Now, I ask you what does the Srimad Bhagavatam say about a bona fide religious path? Please read in the first canto where it is described that that religion which brings about a revolutionary change of heart of the practicioner is the perfect religion. Now I know your statements seem to you to be reasonable and backed by sastra, but do you really think that no one in the history of Christianity made any spiritual progress? This is an untenable position at best. All one has to do is read about all of the mystics and saints and their experiences to know that your assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.

 

2) Original Christianity of Jesus Christ may or may not have been different from contemporary Christianity and also bona fide in some sense, but we lack objective evidence to prove that to anyone who is not a follower of Srila Prabhupada

 

Your definition of bona fide is based on your own religion and by comparison anything which is different is not bona fide - same position as the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims last time I had a look at their belief systems. As I said previously there is an abundance of literature outlining the lives, beliefs and practices of the early church fathers. Historians and academics have a different take on the empirical evidence that outlines what constituted the practices of the early Christians than you do.

 

3) Even if original Christianity was different from contemporary Christiantity and a bona fide path in its own way, it is still not a path that independently leads to the supreme goal - like karma-yoga, jnaana-yoga, varnaashrama-dharma, etc it at best reforms one so they can practice bhakti-yoga (see evidence already quoted). The evidence from the Bhaagavata clearly indicates that by bhakti-yoga beginning with Hari-naama only does one attain the supreme goal. (if you have a problem with this "fundamentalism" please take it up with Vyaasa, all I have done is to quote his very straightforward statements) in this regard.

 

As I already told you - your take on this is not much different from that of the Catholics who hold that all other religions are good and will eventually find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. If you have a problem with that take it up with Jesus? Sounds silly if you ask me.

The spiritual world is a big place - do you think that everything about it is revealed in the Vedic scriptures? The supreme destination is different for each soul. Now days there is quite alot of talk about Manjari Bhava - but is the spiritual kingdom filled with only Manjaris? Is there only one planet? The bible quotes Jesus as saying that there are many houses in his father's kingdom. The bible says that in the beginning there was the word and that word became flesh - Jesus. Do you think that Christians do not call on the name of God?

 

4) Many ideas based on appeasement of Christians, such as the idea that Jesus is Krishna Himself, that Christianity is an equal alternative to Vaishnavism and that one need not take to worship of Vishnu, that chanting Jehovah is equal to chanting of Hare Krishna, that meat-eating is acceptable for Christians and that they can still make spiritual advancement despite eating meat, that Vedic injunctions are relevant to Hindus only, etc etc. are all heresies with no support from shaastra or Srila Prabhupada. Their popularity does not make them correct.

 

We've already discussed some of this. You have not established that one cannot make any spiritual advancement if they eat meat. Lord Chaitanya said that Krsna has hundreds of thousands of names and that they are fully charged with his potency. Srila Prabhupada said on many many occasions that there is no need to changing the language or nomenclature by which one calls on God. They can chant the name they have a heart for. Now you wish to say something different. Sorry - I don't buy it. Srila Prabhupada clearly understood that there is one Supreme God and that Christians are worshiping that God using a different name. This he said on many occasions.

 

5) The criticism of Hindus for acts which are also committed by Christians, even though the latter are not criticized, is a blatant double standard that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If devotees wish to criticize, they should do so based on a uniform standard, rather than appeasing those with whom they have some personal sympathy. Better yet, devotees can show compassion for all, by honestly pointing out the errors committed by *both* Hindus and Christians with specific reference to shaastra, and encouraging both to give up their mental preconceptions and try to follow the proper dharma.

 

I agree with sentiment whole heartedly. But honestly, better than taking shots at others it is far better to practice and get a spiritual life oneself. One of my Guru Maharaja's disciples asked him what she should say to those in her family who were eating meat - how could she convince them to give it up? His answer was very instructive - he said that she should try to live an exemplary life such that those around her would wish to emulate her because they see the good in her. He discouraged her from trying to 'hammer' the person with philosophy.

 

Dear Krishna_s - do you think that Christians are foolish and unlearned people who have no logic, reason and argument of their own? Do you think that they do not have a long standing tradition of scripture and scriptural interpretation and debate? No logic is conclusive, and scripture only points the way for each of us to journey forward toward loving God. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I personally know many Christians who have had transformative experiences in their lives and are tasting love of Jesus. Most of the progressive and truly spiritual Christians that I know are vegetarians - they have become so based on the softening of their own hearts -but that is not universal.

 

We are followers of Lord Chaitanya and as such we embrace all of his teachings. Which teaching have we been told by Krsnadasa Kaviraja to hang as a garland around our necks? Humble, tolerant, giving respect to all without expecting any in return - and in this way we can always chant the names of Hari.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[gHari]

Their masters can authorize murder. Their masters are omniscient, yet they read books? They place pedaphiles in their schools because the children's karma is that they should be molested. They cut each others' heads off and slash each others' throats. And all this after surrendering to their God, Krsna Caitanya. That is their procedure: surrender to God. What kind of God is this? What kind of religion is this?

 

K, for the record, the "so dull" Prabhupada quote was not in reference to your good self.

 

gHari

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Before writing, I will just state that I believe Jesus Christ is a pure devotee of the Lord; not because of what I know about him, but because Srila Prabhupada has taught us this in his books and lectures. I say this only to avoid the misunderstanding that I may be attacking Christianity or Christ.

 

 

This is an untenable position at best. All one has to do is read about all of the mystics and saints and their experiences to know that your assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

Without denying the validity of this statement, it should be pointed out that this is the same answer given to establish the authenticity and purity of such Hindu saints as Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Nityananda Baba, Baba Muktananda, Sai Baba, etc. The stories of their lives are filled with narrations of apparent miracles, divine experiences and pure devotion. Whether such things are true, verifiable, or relevant evidence is questionable.

 

This seems to be more of an emotional argument, as no one can actually gauge or judge these reported histories. Those who are devotees of Ramakrishna will believe that he had a divine vision of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Others may not give much importance to his own claims and may dismiss it as a fabrication. Similarly the descriptions of Ramakrishna's maha-bhava, performance of miracles, visions of God, revealing his divine form, etc., may also be dismissed. They are not valid evidences, they are only acceptable once the validity of the person has been established. All of the descriptions appear to point to a realized and liberated soul, perhaps even a divine incarnation, but the fact that they are personal recollections make them irrelevant until the source has been established as authentic or beyond doubt.

 

"Yes, Sai Baba is God, for he has shown his universal form to some of his devotees." This is a similar evidence to what you suggest above in regards to the Christian saints. Sai Baba's followers use such things to assert the divinity of their guru, but it is not a valid evidence as the source has not been established beyond doubt. Simply a disciple making a statement doesn't establish that as reality. This is equally true for Hindu "saints" and Christian mystics alike.

 

 

But what constitutes a complete block for one to make any tangible progress toward moving beyond the karmic bonds is another thing altogether. Don't confuse the two. Please try again on this one if you think you can find better sastric support for your claim.

 

 

Here is a statement from Srila Prabhupada refering to Bhagavatam 10.1.4:

 

 

"Thou shall not kill." That is the beginning of religious life. The animal killers cannot understand what is God. It is not possible. There is a statement in the Bhagavata, vina pasughnat.

 

nivrtta tarsair upagiyamanad

bhavausadhac chrotra-mano-'bhiramat

ka uttamasloka gunanuvadat

puman virajyeta vina pasughnat

 

"Who can remain aloof from the chanting of the holy name of God unless he's an animal killer?" Yes. Animal killers cannot understand what is God, what is God's name. That's not possible. Krsna, what to speak of killing animal, He was embracing animal every morning, every... Yes. He was embracing.

 

 

 

 

ye tv anevaM-vido 'santaH

stabdhAh sad-abhimAninaH

pashUn druhyanti vishrabdhAH

pretya khAdanti te ca tAn

 

"Those sinful persons who are ignorant of actual religious principles, yet consider themselves to be completely pious, without compunction commit violence against innocent animals who are fully trusting them. In their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world."

- Bhagavata Purana 11.5.15

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The following are statements by Srila Prabhupada on this particular topic. His view is that meat eating disqualifies one from spiritual advancement.

 

 

Vina pasughnat. That is stated in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, that "One who is killer of animal, he cannot understand the spiritual science." Vina pasughnat. This is the statement. Pasughna means the animal killer. Therefore the first prohibition is stop this animal killing.

 

 

 

Those who are animal killers, they are not even human being, what to speak of religious system. Nivrtta-tarsair upagiyamanad bhavausadhac chrotra-mano-'bhiramat ka uttamasloka-guna. If you are animal killer, your God consciousness is finished. You'll never be able to understand what is God. Then your life is finished. This life is meant for understanding God, and if you are animal killer, then your God understanding is finished.

 

 

 

According to Narada Muni and Vedic culture, animal killers are not even gentlemen, to say nothing of being religious men. A religious person, a devotee of the Lord, must be nonviolent. Such is the nature of a religious person. It is contradictory to be violent and at the same time call oneself a religious person. Such hypocrisy is not approved by Narada Muni and the disciplic succession.

 

 

 

The word asuci-vratah, unclean vow, is very significant in this connection. Such demoniac people are only attracted by wine, women, gambling and meat-eating; those are their asuci, unclean habits. Induced by pride and false prestige, they create some principles of religion which are not approved by the Vedic injunctions. Although such demoniac people are most abominable in the world, still, by artificial means the world creates a false honor for them. Although they are gliding toward hell, they consider themselves very much advanced.

 

 

 

The animal-killers (dvisatah), envying other living entities and the Supreme Personality of Godhead, are placed in darkness and cannot understand the theme and objective of life.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Some points to consider:

 

The Catholic saints were not involved in the kind of animal salughter that goes on today. Bhaktisiddhanta was prepared to serve meet to Western guests at Sri Dhama Mayapura. The Pandavas ate meet. Some say Rama and Krishna ate it. Meat eating is a moral/ethical consideration, not a spiritual one.

 

Krishna s is basically arguing that his interpretation of his belief system says that Christiaity is not a religion leading to emacipation as understood in his belief system. He is challenging others who profess the same belief system to demonstrate how another interpretation of the same belief system that validates Christianity in some way is credible.

 

Outside of this his arguments don't hold any water. Dismissal of Christain mystics is about as credible to an objective third party as is the Christian dismissal of Vaisnava mystics, etc., etc. The body of God (Christ) in Christianity is material. Krishna's body is spiritual, yet he dies from an arrow wound in the foot. And the list goes on.

 

I think an intelligent argument needs to be made that will appeal to objective people who see as much mysticism, goodness, compassion, etc. in both paths to be turned off by one's criticism of the other, especially when the criticism completely rejects one or the other.

 

You might want to read Christian theologians and academics carefully before dismissing the entire religion, especially those who have deeply studied Hinduism, Vedanta and the Caitanya religion and yet remained Christians, such as Merton, Eck, Judah, Shinn, Griffiths, Carman, and so on. Its a long list.

 

I think that however well reasoned, Krishna s has put forward a sound kanistha adhikari argumnet. There are an abundance of these arguments throughout scripture becasue there are quite a few kanistha adhikaris and such statements help them at some point.

 

 

[theist]

Myself I don't measure the two teachings against each other in an attempt to vailidate the one and invalidate the other.

 

I view Christ's mission as one where he was sent into the heart of animal killing territory to try and rescue us, and elevate us to a position where we would be able to comprehend the finer teachings of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Even though that conception is vague in present day Christianity by focusing on worshiping Lord Jesus the sincere amongst them will go to Jesus in Christ-loka there to be further trained in Krsna consciusness.

 

Personally I am not going to try and measure myself against some sincere Christians I have known and try to feel superior on the basis of not eatting meat and having read a few of Sria Prabhupada's books.

 

A case in point. A few years back in a women and her two daughters had an apt. across from me. She was in a Korean body,new to this country, and a devout Catholic.

 

I saw her struggle so hard to raise her daughters, honor students,while running her own business, a beauty salon. Hard work. But the thing is she also got up everyday at 4 am and went to church to spend those hours in prayer.

 

So even though she made the mistake of eatting meat her devotion and practice made me feel pretty small all things considered.

 

How to judge it all? I don't know.

 

[krishna_s]

 

 

The fundamentalist approach to spirituality is just as ugly regardless of what tradition it supposedly represents. The fundamentalist finds no room for any other approach to divinity but their own and they have their scriptures to point to which they use as justification for their position.

 

 

 

 

I have pointed out the shaastric position. Since you can't admit when you're wrong, you instead play the well known "fundamentalist" trump card, a frequently used tactic employed by one who has no evidence left to defend his position.

 

Of interest is the fact that the individual who wrote the following remarks:

 

 

 

"Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife....."

 

"In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this."

 

"To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things...."

 

"Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature."

 

"....The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational."

 

"Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable."

 

"The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God."

 

"Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation."

 

God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds."

 

 

 

... is not considered by you to be a fundamentalist. Why not? I have merely pointed out the shaastric evidence that deems certain contemporary Christian practices and ideas to be incorrect at best or sinful at worst. The author of the above writings, on the other hand, refers to Christians as being "less intelligent," their religion as a "mixed-up religion," and various other unkind remarks. Is this individual not, therefore, a fundamentalist? These are far more unkind than anything I have said.

 

But I already know your answer. He isn't a fundamentalist to you, because he is Bhaktivinod Thakur, and you can't get away with criticizing him on a forum like this. But since I'm a nobody, you can easily label me any way you like for imagined offenses. The double standard is obvious.

 

In keeping with your strategy of avoiding my questions, what you should probably do now is claim that, by the above, I have somehow compared myself to Bhaktivinod Thakur. Or, you could claim that you weren't calling me a fundamentalist this time... you just happened to write it in a response to me. That these claims are untrue isn't important to you. What is important is that it will earn enough emotional sympathy from the crowd so you can continue to lure them away from facts.

 

 

 

Contrary to your assertions, you have not demonstrated your position that those who eat meat can make no spiritual advancement. Citing the manu samhita where it states the number of births and deaths one must undergo do to such acts doesn't cut it.

 

 

 

 

With all due respect, what color is the sky in your world? I have given sufficient evidence showing that meat-eaters remain bound to the material world, can be reincarnated as animals, are killed in their next lives for the lives they have taken in their previous lives, etc. You think that such people can make spiritual advancement in spite of this? That's like saying that in order to understand Advaita, you have to first understand Dvaita.

 

Jada Bharata continued his saadhana as a deer, a body he obtained not because he killed deer, but because he became affectionate to a pet deer just before his death. In spite of that, the results of his previous bhakti gave him the intelligence to continue. Otherwise, incarnating as an animal as a result of animal slaughter is quite a big, reverse step, from spiritual advancement.

 

Hand-waving dismissal of evidence and common sense won't help you. I've done my part. Now the onus is on you to show that someone who slaughters animals and in turn becomes a slaughterhouse victim is making spiritual advancement - or alternately, you can retract your argument.

 

 

You have been silent on the content of my posts except to say that I have avoided the issues you have raised.

 

 

 

Since very little of your content addresses anything I wrote, I remain silent. Sorry, but I don't dignify strawman arguments with a response. If you have a problem with this, learn to read what I write instead of reading into what I write. By doing so, you will find that many of your knee-jerk responses have no bearing on anything I actually wrote.

 

 

 

1) Contemporary (i.e. today) Christianity is not acceptable as a bona fide religious path according to Vedic culture, what with its views on animal-killing, its attempt to identify Jesus as God, its attempt to assign a material body to God, etc.

 

First off I would say you have no real concept of what Christianity is or what it's beliefs are.

 

 

 

 

It's interesting how you manage to give the appearance of addressing what I said, while in fact you do nothing of the sort.

 

For example, I have given very specific points of disagreement between Vaishnavism and contemporary Christianity. But ignoring all of them, you proceed with a strangely wishy-washy response, alluding to the realizations of Christian mystics of bygone days in support of your position.

 

But my objection is that *contemporary* Christianity is not acceptable from a Vedic standpoint. Did any of your mystics eat turkey on Thanksgiving day? Did they eat hamburgers when they went out on a night on the town? It is a fact that the majority of contemporary Christians do these things and have not scriptural injunctions which they acknowledge to be contrary to such acts. For you to prove your point, you would have to give an example of someone who practices Christianity as people practice it today - and unambiguously show that such a person achieved either liberation or at least a higher birth.

 

You refer to Shriimad Bhaagavatam's statement about transcendental dharma, but you ignore the multiple Puraanic references quoted by me which establish that chanting of Lord Hari's names is the only way for deliverance in Kali Yuga. Worse still, you use shaastric evidence to support your position when it in fact does not do so. What does the Bhaagavatam say about a bona fide religion? Let's see:

 

"Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart. "(SB 1.1.2)

 

Is the practice of modern-day Christianity, even at the level of doctrine, completely divorced of material motives? Is "God give me my daily bread" a prayer which does away with dharma, artha, kaama, and moksha and deals only with the essence of Krishna-prema? Obviously, Srila Bhaktivinod Thakur did not think so, which is why he wrote:

 

 

"The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future.If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world."

 

 

 

It is clear what at least one Vaishnava aachaarya thinks about the Christianity of today.

 

 

 

2) Original Christianity of Jesus Christ may or may not have been different from contemporary Christianity and also bona fide in some sense, but we lack objective evidence to prove that to anyone who is not a follower of Srila Prabhupada

 

Your definition of bona fide is based on your own religion and by comparison anything which is different is not bona fide - same position as the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims last time I had a look at their belief systems.

 

 

 

 

Again, you aren't really addressing this point at all. Yes, we Vaishnavas define what is bona fide by reference to Vedas. That is our standard. That Christians have their standard, by which our religion may not be acceptable to them, is likely, but ultimately not the point. The point is, according to Vedic teachings and injuctions, much of modern-day Christianity is unacceptable to Vaishnavas. Of course, most impersonalist Hindus won't find it unacceptable, because like you, they will also imply if not say overtly, that the Vedas are just one of many scriptures, ultimately limited by the cultural conceptions in which they are found. Such ideas are not acceptable to Vaishnava Vedaantins, for whom Veda-apaurusheyatva is an axiom.

 

Again, you can rail against this all you want, calling it "fundamentalism" and so forth, but it is Vaishnavism. Just as "no man reaches the father but by me" is Christianity. We can't criticize a Christian for believing that because that is part of his religion. Throwing accusations of "fundamentalism" does not change what is in one's religious scriptures, and asking someone to believe that maybe his scriptures are not quite correct on some point is not reasonable at all, unless you are planning to present a superior authority which should be accepted in its stead.

 

But of course, that becomes "fundamentalism" in your book.

 

Either accept the scriptures the way they are meant to be accepted, or admit that you have trouble with 100% acceptance. You need to be honest about what you do and do not accept as pramaana, rather than pretending that Vedic literature is important while simultaneously rejecting one's exclusive reliance on them as fundamentalism.

 

We don't have any empiric evidence that the original Christianity was more Vedic in its outlook. We can believe that the original Christianity was in fact more pristine and only became degraded with time, but those are just beliefs, which we are unable to substantiate, and frankly speaking, even you have been unable to substantiate despite all your claims of knowing this religion more than I. If we could procure a copy of the Bible in the original Aramaic, and demonstrate an injunction within it (for example) that disciples keep and protect cows, then I would agree that this could be evidence of influence of a universal Vedic culture. Thus far you have shown nothing of the sort.

 

 

 

3) Even if original Christianity was different from contemporary Christiantity and a bona fide path in its own way, it is still not a path that independently leads to the supreme goal - like karma-yoga, jnaana-yoga, varnaashrama-dharma, etc it at best reforms one so they can practice bhakti-yoga (see evidence already quoted). The evidence from the Bhaagavata clearly indicates that by bhakti-yoga beginning with Hari-naama only does one attain the supreme goal. (if you have a problem with this "fundamentalism" please take it up with Vyaasa, all I have done is to quote his very straightforward statements) in this regard.

 

As I already told you - your take on this is not much different from that of the Catholics who hold that all other religions are good and will eventually find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. If you have a problem with that take it up with Jesus? Sounds silly if you ask me.

The spiritual world is a big place - do you think that everything about it is revealed in the Vedic scriptures?

 

 

 

 

Can you learn to answer a question clearly without asking a tangential question?

 

What you or I think or do not think is ultimately not the point.

 

The shaastras have clearly stated that one gets liberation *only* by unalloyed bhakti and chanting of Lord Hari's names.

 

If one *only* gets liberation by ananya-bhakti and Hari-naama, then it follows that the religion which does not teach these things does not directly lead one to liberation, according to Vedic point of view.

 

Thus, as Christianity does not teach such things, it does not directly lead to liberation according to Vedic point of view.

 

 

 

Do you think that Christians do not call on the name of God?

 

 

 

 

What I think is irrelevant. Can you prove with sufficient evidence to a Maadhva or Shrii Vaishnava scholar that Jehovah is another name of Vishnu? My point is you can't. And when they say that you are diluting your religion with Christianity just to make it more appealing to Westerners, what will your response be, realizing that you will be seen as a representative of your guru?

 

 

 

4) Many ideas based on appeasement of Christians, such as the idea that Jesus is Krishna Himself, that Christianity is an equal alternative to Vaishnavism and that one need not take to worship of Vishnu, that chanting Jehovah is equal to chanting of Hare Krishna, that meat-eating is acceptable for Christians and that they can still make spiritual advancement despite eating meat, that Vedic injunctions are relevant to Hindus only, etc etc. are all heresies with no support from shaastra or Srila Prabhupada. Their popularity does not make them correct.

 

We've already discussed some of this. You have not established that one cannot make any spiritual advancement if they eat meat.

 

 

 

Please. The evidence was very clear on this point. You should drop this charade and admit that you only care for shaastric pramaanas when they support your agenda.

 

 

 

Lord Chaitanya said that Krsna has hundreds of thousands of names and that they are fully charged with his potency.

 

 

 

 

And how does this prove that Jehovah is a name of Krishna? By such logic one can also "prove" that Sai Baba is a name of Krishna.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada said on many many occasions that there is no need to changing the language or nomenclature by which one calls on God.They can chant the name they have a heart for.

 

 

 

Two things:

 

(1) As mentioned several times, the "Srila Prabhupada says..." only works on those who already accept Srila Prabhupada as guru. It does not work on other Hindus, other Vaishnavas, or anyone else who might have reason to object.

(2) While Srila Prabhupada did say such things to uninitiated crowds, his initiated disciples were always directed by him to chant those names of Krishna found in shaastra. Don't confuse preaching directed at particular people in particular circumstances with final siddhaanta. None of his disciples were initiated in Jehovah mantra.

 

 

 

5) The criticism of Hindus for acts which are also committed by Christians, even though the latter are not criticized, is a blatant double standard that reeks of intellectual dishonesty. If devotees wish to criticize, they should do so based on a uniform standard, rather than appeasing those with whom they have some personal sympathy. Better yet, devotees can show compassion for all, by honestly pointing out the errors committed by *both* Hindus and Christians with specific reference to shaastra, and encouraging both to give up their mental preconceptions and try to follow the proper dharma.

 

I agree with sentiment whole heartedly. But honestly, better than taking shots at others it is far better to practice and get a spiritual life oneself.

 

 

 

 

You really need to get a clue.

 

I am not taking "shots" at anyone, and if you weren't so full of your own self-righteousness, you would see that. Pointing out the irreconciable differences between Vaishnavism and modern Christianity isn't fundamentalism; it's honesty. If you think the Vedas are narrow-minded, fundamentalist, are no better than the Bible, are not completely flawless, etc, then that is your right. My point remains that those who truly accept the Vedas will not accept Christianity on the same level as Vaishnavism.

 

 

 

One of my Guru Maharaja's disciples asked him what she should say to those in her family who were eating meat - how could she convince them to give it up? His answer was very instructive - he said that she should try to live an exemplary life such that those around her would wish to emulate her because they see the good in her. He discouraged her from trying to 'hammer' the person with philosophy.

 

 

 

Anyway, according to you, one can make spiritual advancement in spite of eating meat, so why discourage meat-eating?

 

 

 

Dear Krishna_s - do you think that Christians are foolish and unlearned people who have no logic, reason and argument of their own?

 

 

 

 

Actually, no. Mostly I think that of you, and all others who, like you, dilute Gaudiiya Vaishnavism with Christian sympathies and speculations. It's not as if you haven't proven that by your writings here.

 

 

 

Do you think that they do not have a long standing tradition of scripture and scriptural interpretation and debate? No logic is conclusive, and scripture only points the way for each of us to journey forward toward loving God. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I personally know many Christians who have had transformative experiences in their lives and are tasting love of Jesus. Most of the progressive and truly spiritual Christians that I know are vegetarians - they have become so based on the softening of their own hearts -but that is not universal.

 

 

 

 

All of this presupposes that your perceptions are unfettered and objective - neither of which have been established conclusively here. Similar comments are made by devotees of Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, etc. I doubt you would accept as genuine the revelations of a Sai Baba devotee speaking of his great spiritual transformation catalyzed by worshipping the lotus feet of Sai; so why should anyone accept your position that the "transformation" of a Christian is genuine simply because you think so? What is your qualification to judge? Even among ISKCON Vaishnavas, there are many who speak of their great spiritual transformations during their initial exposure. But then they bloop 6 months later. So what happened to their great spiritual transformations?

 

The fact is, most of these faith-based "realizations" lack the maturity of conviction, and as such, are on the mental platform only. Many cannot bring themselves to admit this, and so when their fragile faith is challenged, they change. Firm faith comes with increasing reliance upon guru, saadhu, and shaastra. Christians, Sai Babas, Muslims, etc - they all go through it too. And such things are often mistaken as genuine spiritual transformations by others who are similarly immature in spiritual life.

 

 

 

Humble, tolerant, giving respect to all without expecting any in return

 

 

 

 

... and lecturing others on such virtues while simultaneously labeling anyone who disagrees with us as a narrow-minded fundamentalist....

 

 

 

in this way we can always chant the names of Hari.

 

 

 

 

- K

[dhaa]

 

All one has to do is read about all of the mystics and saints and their experiences...

 

 

what did the christian mystics & saints experience

[Guest guest]

I probably shouldn't even dignify your last post with a response because it was very rude and insulting to say the least. What was that you said about self-righteous? You think you understand me and why I bother to post something in response to your foolish interpretation of our scriptures and your obvious superiority complex which denigrates anyone who views things differently than you. I am not writing to appease an audience. I am genuinely concerned that someone who thinks he is representing Gaudiya Vaishnavism is so caught up in rigidity and self righteousness that he can pass judgement on billions of his fellow human beings based on that perception of superiority. I personally find it to be a very ugly expression and if that is all I found within those who follow this path I would have nothing to do with it.

 

The fundamentalist will always claim that their interpretation of scripture is correct and anything different is wrong. Your post merely prooves my point - your position and interpretation of our scriptures is fundamentalist. My calling you a fundamentalist isn't meant as an insult - it is a fact which is repeatedly proven whenever you post. That there are other ways of understanding scripture is obvious. I'll state it again, even though it won't do any good for you - the point of scripture isn't to memorize it and beat it over everyone's head to prove your superiority or that of the path you follow - it is meant to bring about a genuine change of heart in those who read it such that they put it into practice. Those spiritual practicioners who have taken this seriously and do the hard work that scripture implores all to do will develop truly compassionate hearts and will see the good in all. They will develop true humility and will genuinely see themselves as lowly in comparison to others. We aren't simply meant to fill our heads with philosophy, we are meant to develop our hearts as well.

 

This is all I have to say to you Krishna_s, as you have chosen to turn our little 'discussion' into a personal vendetta and I have no taste for such an exchange.

 

Let's leave it this way if it is acceptable to you. I will see you as a Gaudiya fundamentalist and you will see me as a sentamentalist.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

Krishna_s

 

I should have given myself some time before posting a response to you. I have no ill feelings toward you or any ill will whatsoever. Hari Bol! We can agree to disagree without any ill will I hope.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

For the poster who asked about what the Christian mystics experienced - I suggest you read up on it if you are interested. On a side note - what Krishna_s has said about Christian mystics and Sai Baba devotees is also true to our own vaishnava saints. Experience is subjective - it cannot be objectively verified. The experience of the Christian mystics is in sync with their scriptures and can be considered as 'bona fide' on that basis just as the experience of our saints is corroborated by our scriptures. Ultimately though, we will have to either have faith in them or not - we cannot prove the validity of the experience objectively.

[Guest guest]

 

I probably shouldn't even dignify your last post with a response because it was very rude and insulting to say the least.

 

 

Were these meant to be insults?

 

 

But honestly, better than taking shots at others it is far better to practice and get a spiritual life oneself.

 

I think that however well reasoned, Krishna s has put forward a sound kanistha adhikari argumnet. There are an abundance of these arguments throughout scripture becasue there are quite a few kanistha adhikaris and such statements help them at some point.

 

My calling you a fundamentalist isn't meant as an insult

 

The fundamentalist approach to spirituality is just as ugly regardless of what tradition it supposedly represents.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The fundamentalist will always claim that their interpretation of scripture is correct and anything different is wrong. Your post merely prooves my point - your position and interpretation of our scriptures is fundamentalist. My calling you a fundamentalist isn't meant as an insult - it is a fact which is repeatedly proven whenever you post. That there are other ways of understanding scripture is obvious. I'll state it again, even though it won't do any good for you - the point of scripture isn't to memorize it and beat it over everyone's head to prove your superiority or that of the path you follow....

 

This is all I have to say to you Krishna_s, as you have chosen to turn our little 'discussion' into a personal vendetta and I have no taste for such an exchange.

 

Let's leave it this way if it is acceptable to you. I will see you as a Gaudiya fundamentalist and you will see me as a sentamentalist.

 

 

 

OK, let's just forget it all - guru, saadhu, shaastra - everything. Nevermind what they say. I'm not even sure in retrospect why I thought those things were relevant here. Quoting them to establish anything is fundamentalist anyway. No matter what they seem to say, there is always another meaning, and we should accept that other meanings are valid, even if no one can present those alternatives and the rationale behind them. Bottom line: don't disagree with anyone or anything. If someone wants to worship Lord Jesus Christ on the altar next to Radharani, then let them. If someone wants to claim he is in the paramparaa from Jesus Christ, let him. If someone wants to say that "tat tvam asi" means "I am that I am," then let him. If someone wants to say that "Jesus Christ is a pure devotee of Krishna" leads one to the conclusion that Jesus is Krishna, then let him. If someone wants to say that Srila Prabhupada is Jesus incarnate, let him. If someone wants to bash Hindus over the head for meat-eating, while praising Christians who eat cows, then let him. Don't worry about what other Vaishnavas will think of us, what to speak of other Vedaantins in general.

 

Silly me. What was I thinking? That we actually had a philosophy worth speaking of? Or that we actually had intellectual integrity? Scholarly standards? Loyalty to the scriptures? Bah. True Vaishnavas don't need scriptures! Why this realization took so long to dawn on me, I don't know. Maybe it's because I drink milk. And I use scriptures to hide from myself. Yes, that's it. Milk and hiding.

 

Now that I am finally making a turn for the better, I am looking forward to getting to know the real Gaudiya Vaishnavism better from the pros. Lesson #1 learned - never ascribe absolute truth to any scripture, not even our own. Hopefully now I can make true progress.

 

[gHari]

The mentalist speculators have proposed a variety of strawmen religious constructs based on the teachings of the Bible and Lord Jesus. Srila Bhaktivinoda by pointing out the foolishness of various evolved concepts now prominent in 'Christianity' is telling the Churches where they have missed the mark and distorted the scriptures.

 

That has been done. Perhaps it would now be more productive and constructive to provide the correct understanding of these ideas from their scripture.

 

If a vaisnava reads their scripture he very quickly understands that they have not understood. Such a vaisnava will see the truth therein.

 

There is no glory in ridiculing their strawmen - it is just too easy and obvious. If we have time to spend, then let us spend it constructively.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The mentalist speculators have proposed a variety of strawmen religious constructs based on the teachings of the Bible and Lord Jesus. Srila Bhaktivinoda by pointing out the foolishness of various evolved concepts now prominent in 'Christianity' is telling the Churches where they have missed the mark and distorted the scriptures.

 

 

Ahem. I think that's fundamentalism. Who are you to call them "mentalist speculators?" Are you saying their ideas are wrong? On what basis? There is no absolute authority. Everyone has their own idea. Get with the program!

 

 

That has been done. Perhaps it would now be more productive and constructive to provide the correct understanding of these ideas from their scripture.

 

 

 

Wonderful. Are you in the Brahma-Madhva-Jesus paramparaa? I think we need a translation of the Bible with the original Aramaic and word-for-word synonyms in English. But who will author it? And is it acceptable to refer to him as "His Divine Grace?" Questions, questions...

[AncientMariner]

 

 

 

I do find it bizarre when I see Christians handing out hamburgers or even eating them. It just doesn't seem right to me but it is probably due to my own personal bias against Christianity as a result of growing up in a Mormon community where I was rejected but that rejection was probably a blessing because that rejection is what caused me to search out Krishna Consciousness.

[gHari]

Please excuse me, but I cannot take instruction from you. I am an old man; time is very valuable now.

[Guest guest]

I believe that your books and gurus say that we should judge by the fruits, phalena pariciyate. The fact that there are Christiain saints who are saintly by any standards other then fundamentalist Gaudiya one's tells us that wahtever their practice is it does have sprirtual merit. The Gita teaches that detachment from matter is a result of knowlwdge.We find this kind of detachment in a good number of Christian saints. While this may not be prema bhakti, it is generic spirituality. Note that the practice and understanding of the Christian saints may be quite different from that of the average Christian, and this holds true for the Vasisnavas too.

 

If your books says to you that people who believe and act in ways contrary to your beliefs as to what is a spiritual outlook canot be spiritual, yet some of those people exhibit spiritual qualities, it would seem reasonable to suggest that you rexamine your understanding of your books.

 

The fact is that there is a fundamentalist understanding of scripture. The problem is that those who have it keep asking for black and white evidence for it.

[Guest guest]

after reading this my respect for bhaktivinoda has increased. how can jesus be the only way ? what happened to people before his advent and who never heard of him ? i used to think that the gaudiya acharyas equate chrisitianity to vedic dharma for evangelistic purposes. i am glad to know that they smash it so well as most advaita acharyas do.

 

truth knows no diplomacy.

[krishna_s]

 

If your books says to you that people who believe and act in ways contrary to your beliefs as to what is a spiritual outlook canot be spiritual, yet some of those people exhibit spiritual qualities, it would seem reasonable to suggest that you rexamine your understanding of your books.

 

The fact is that there is a fundamentalist understanding of scripture. The problem is that those who have it keep asking for black and white evidence for it.

 

 

All I know is that nobody gets liberation by slaughtering millions of innocent animals for the purpose of satisfying their bellies and their taste buds.

 

fundamentally yours,

 

- K

 

[theist]

Bhaktivinode ate meat in his earlier life. He obviously still made spiritual progress.

 

Until milk drinkers in the West who contribute to the slaughter of calves for veal and the horrid lives and early deaths of milk producing cows deal with that then all their proclamations on cow protection will continue to ring hollow.

 

I find Hindu fanatics just as off putting as Christian or Muslim fanatics.

 

Many words with little or no substance.