Christianity and Hinduism

[Guest guest]

If God or His appointed messengers speak only as much as can be understood by the people at that time and place...

 

and Jesus is a bona fide representative of Krishna who also taught a bona fide spiritual path...

 

and Advaita (aka mAyAvAda) is a misleading path that is deserving of condemnation (unlike Christianity)....

 

... then does it not reveal that the Hebrew and Roman people of Jesus' time were more qualified for hearing spiritual topics than were the ancient Hindus of Adi ShankarAchArya's time?

 

The above theory seems to satisfy a very deep rooted prejudice among Western "devotees" of Krishna which holds that Hindus of the 8th century were far less spiritually developed than their counterparts of the Roman world circa O001 AD.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

Adi Shankaracharya talked about the "One reality". He was not misleading any one in my view... but others may disagree.

[Guest guest]

"... then does it not reveal that the Hebrew and Roman people of Jesus' time were more qualified for hearing spiritual topics than were the ancient Hindus of Adi ShankarAchArya's time? "

 

why not? ... shankaracharya could not say more, we have to remember that before him there was the total destruction of vedic philosophy by sri buddah, so he had to rebuild it slowly sayng only that the ultimate truth was not the void but the formless

 

(even if shakaracharya was a personalist, i we read his "bhaja govindam":

 

 

bhajagovindaM bhajagovindaM

govindaM bhajamuuDhamate .

saMpraapte sannihite kaale

nahi nahi rakshati DukR^iJNkaraNe .. 1..

 

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool ! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death. )

 

personally i feel more close the christian religion than advaitism, the fact that we have some similar cerimonies and customs does not make me forget that impersonalists want to make of krsna a character created by brahman to facilitate the worship of some ignorant people who cannot understand the formless absolute

 

in western countries when i preach no one goes against the preminent personality of god, in this forum the 99% of the indians do it

 

so let us not make west vs east wars, everyone in kali yuga has his maya

 

[Guest guest]

REALISE THE PART OF GOD WITHIN YOU, AND YOU'LL HAVE FOUND THE MESSENGER OF GOD.

[Guest guest]

 

why not? ... shankaracharya could not say more, we have to remember that before him there was the total destruction of vedic philosophy by sri buddah, so he had to rebuild it slowly sayng only that the ultimate truth was not the void but the formless

 

 

 

If the spread of Buddhism caused the destruction of Vedic philosophy, requiring ShankarAchArya to preach in such a way as to rebuild it slowly, then logically the same should be true of Jesus when he was preaching to a society that was even further removed from Vedic culture/philosophy than was 8th century India.

 

Thus, one would expect that what Jesus taught would be further from the Truth than Adi ShankarAchArya, given "presence of Vedic philosophy" as an indicator of the qualification of the audience.

 

Yet it is a fact that ISKCON devotees give more praise to Jesus' philosophy than that of ShankarAchArya. When considering the untenable logic upon which this premise is based, one can't help but wonder if this sentiment is really fueled by Western prejudices vis-a-vis "Hinduism" rather than any actual compatibility between Christianity and VedAntic Vaishnavism.

 

As far as ShankarAchArya being a personalist - certainly there is no doubt about it. Similarly, Jesus could have been a pure devotee. But none of this changes the fact that both their teachings are far removed from BhAgavata philosophy.

 

 

personally i feel more close the christian religion than advaitism, the fact that we have some similar cerimonies and customs does not make me forget that impersonalists want to make of krsna a character created by brahman to facilitate the worship of some ignorant people who cannot understand the formless absolute

 

in western countries when i preach no one goes against the preminent personality of god, in this forum the 99% of the indians do it

 

 

 

With all due respect, this is precisely the sort of double standard (probably inspired by anti-Hindu prejudice) I was referring to previously.

 

It is claimed by you that "in this forum" 99% of "indiansgo agains the preeminent personality" of Krishna. First of all, I fail to see how you could logically arrive at such a conclusion, given that race cannot be identified reliably from most postings here. Why do you assume that 99% of people in this forum who are preaching impersonalist ideas are "indians?" I suggest to you that you have pre-judged, hence Prejudice.

 

By the above standard, if I were to take the Christians "in this forum" and look at their habits, virtues, and practices, I find it unlikely that they would hold up under similar scrutiny. Already we have seen examples here of Christians dishonestly claiming certain Jesus ideas come from Rig Veda, Christians posting bogus testimonials from fictitious Hindus about their alleged conversions to Christianity, etc etc.

 

But lest I am being uncharitable, let us not look at a select few Christians on this forum who obviously lack intellectual honesty. Let us instead take the Christian community as a whole.

 

Your implicit claim that Christians do not go against "the preeminent personality of God," for example, is certainly begging the question. If Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Godhead in His original form, then where is the "Christian" who will readily accept this? The only "personality" that is assigned to God by Christians is that of an elderly man in a toga according to the European Catholic tradition of the early Renaissance period (see the paintings of Michelangelo, for example). As far as Christians of contemporary times, practically all of them speak of God in personal terms but do not acknowledge personality in any way that even impersonalist Hindus do. There is no explicit acceptance of the transcendental name, form, qualities, and pastimes of the Supreme Lord in Christianity.

 

And what to speak of philosophy, certainly Christians are no better in their habits than lay Hindus. Orthodox Advaitins are required to be vegetarian, but contemporary Christians are mostly not vegetarian and even eat cow meat. It is not even clear from an objective standpoint that the Christian tradition was ever vegetarian, despite such claims from many ISKCON writers.

 

Thus, I do not see that Christians are any closer to the Truth of Vaishnava Vedaanta than lay Hindus or orthodox Advaitins. Consequently, I call into question the double standard implicit in ISKCON's bias towards Christianity.

 

 

so let us not make west vs east wars, everyone in kali yuga has his maya

 

 

 

Except of course, for Christians, who, despite their habits, receive nothing but praise and encouragement from ISKCON followers.

 

It's really not about "west vs east wars," but rather about being truthful to the tradition one represents. Being gifted with the highest conclusions of VedAnta does not give one leave to selectively denigrate some contradictory philosophies and peoples while simultaneously trying to uplift others.

 

Please consider all of the above points carefully before answering.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

your premises reveal what you want to obtain from this discussion ... that India is superior in any time and in any philosophical position

 

i am not sectarian and i do not make questiond of race etc. and i am not to be inquadrated in any ISKcon or not ISKcon cathegory

 

i only think that impersonalism and mayavadism are the worst philosophical and religious positions, that are actually a blasphemy

 

saying that god is an od man in toga, is surely not good as accepting krsna bhagavan, but it is surely better than say that we are god or that god is formless and krsna, rama, vishnu are made by maya

 

the fact that india is so full of this, does not guarantee that everything that comes from india is good and saint (even if india is so saint and divine)... i repeat, in western countries, personalism is never put in discussion .... the people who discuss this and say that god is only a formless brahman are studying something from india or following a bogus guru like sai baba, osho, maharishi etc.

 

 

so i am not part of a sociological phenomenon, the harekrsnas who despise india, but i try to judge the ideas that i hear unregarding of the nation and the race of who is speaking

 

so, do not complicate things... india is in maya, usa is in maya, the world is in maya.... let us listen from the real pure vaishnava spiritual masters, not indian or european or american.... pure and vaishnava, it is enough

[gHari 0]

I would recommend that if anyone is this interested in the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ that they should without a doubt read the New Testament and become familiar with and accept into their hearts the merciful instructions of Jesus. Only then can they appreciate Christ.

 

If one cannot see his teachings as bonafide religious practice then they can write all they want. All this nonsense is just offensive. Learn what Christians are supposed to do, not what they do. Every religion would look foolish if we only addressed what its followers do. What is Christ's instruction regarding food? Don't blame him if they don't follow.

 

Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and forget all this dishonest mentalist wrangling.

 

[Guest guest]

 

your premises reveal what you want to obtain from this discussion ... that India is superior in any time and in any philosophical position

 

 

 

Really? Is that I what I want? What makes you think I'm an Indian citizen? What makes you think I'm even Indian? Hindu? Brown-skinned?

 

Perhaps instead of looking for real or imagined faults, you might do well to think about the question asked and come up with a convincing answer. If God's representatives teach only what the audience can accept at that time, then how is it that Christianity is more advanced than Advaita? How is it that a culture of meat-eaters living in ancient Rome and having no connection whatsoever to Vedic culture, has more spiritual qualification than the culture of 8th century India which still had some connection to Vedic culture and was flooded with Buddhist ideas of non-violence? Logically, if presence of Vedic culture is a rough measure of the audience's qualification (as per someone else's claim, not mine), then one must conclude that the people of pre-Christian Rome were less qualified than the people of 8th Century India. This therefore calls into question why Christianity receives so much praise by the very people who denigrate Advaita. If these devotees practiced what they preached, they should praise both or criticize both, rather than adopting one standard for one and a different standard for the other.

 

The fact that most of the responses so far amount to just saying "Offensive!" and repeating the same disputed points without any intelligent rejoinder suggests to me that I have indeed hit a nerve: the Christianity bias in ISKCON is unwarranted from a philosophical standpoint, and it does go hand-in-hand with anti-Hindu prejudice which results in selective condemnation of Advaita.

 

 

 

[AncientMariner 0]

 

 

 

 

 

I was just reading about a Sripada Sankaracarya in the introduction of Srimad Bhagavatam. Apparently he was an incarnation of Lord Siva. Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"The Lord said that but these three items- namely, eternal relation with God, exchange of dealings with Him and the attainment of love for Him- all that is instructed in the Vedas is superfluous and concocted.

The Lord further added that the Mayavada philosophy taught by Sripada Sankaracarya is an imaginary explanation of the Vedas, but it had to be taught by him (Sankaracarya) because he was ordered to teach it by the Personality of Godhead. In the Padma Purana it is stated that the Personality of Godhead ordered His Lordship Siva to deviate the human race from Him (the Personality of Godhead). The Personality of Godhead was to be covered so that people would be encouraged to generate more and more population. His Lordship Siva said to Devi: "In the Kali-yuga, I shall preach the Mayavada philosophy, which is nothing but clouded Buddhism, in the garb of a brahmana."

 

If we are talking about the same Sankaracarya then in Srila Prabhupada's view Sankaracarya was intentionally trying to mislead people but he was instructed to do so by the Personality of Godhead.

[theist 1]

namas te sarasvate deve guara vani pracarine

nirvisesa sunyavadi pascatya desa tarine

 

Our respectful obeisances are unto you, O spiritual master,servant of Sarasvati Gosvami. You are are kindly preaching the message of Lord Caitanyanyadeva and delivering the Western countries, which are filled with impersonalism and voidism.

 

 

Prabhupada came to save us from the creeping ravages of impersonalism and voidism.

 

Not to understand this basic fact is to miss the point of his mission.

 

This is a war against atheism in it's gross forms of gras materialism and materialistic science as well as its more subtle philsophical manifestations.

 

In Prabhupada's teachings we will find that which is necesary to also strengthen and raise up those theist religions that are philosophicaly weak and in danger from impersonalistic creepage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Is is very clear that Adi ShankarAchArya (the incarnation of Shiva) was misleading people, but at the same time he was trying to bring them back to the Vedas and to a rudimentary understanding of Brahman. Many of his final conclusions are unacceptable to Vaishnava VedAntists, but some of them (such as the fact that Brahman is superior to the material nature) are important stepping stones to understanding the higher truths of the Vedas.

 

Christians believe that God came in the form of His own son, took a body of flesh, and suffered and died for their sins. This view of God appears to be even less evolved than that of Advaita, if such a thing is possible. While Christians have a rudimentary understanding of God as a person, they haven't got an understanding of His being vishuddha-sattva. Of course, one could argue that contemporary Christianity has deevolved from the original teachings of Jesus; certainly one could easily say that contemporary Advaita has been led far astray from the standards of ShankarAchArya. But then, either way, one can see that both religions are still deserving of equal amounts of scrutiny, just as both religions probably each have some good points. Putting Christianity above Advaita is artificial.

 

 

 

[AncientMariner 0]

 

 

 

I think it is brilliant and humerous at the same time what Sankaracarya did. In fact reading that introduction just leaves me in a state of amazement. The Lord is a real prankster. It just shows you how subtle He is. Rest assured the Lord will rescue us eventually from impersonalism and voidism. He always does.

[gHari 0]

Christians or Advaitans?