Prabhupada is 2nd coming as Jesus said He would?

[theist 1]

The point I am trying to make is forgetting Christ the person sounds offensive to me. Does remebering Christ stop one from remembering Mahaprabhu? Does remembering Prahlada prevent me from remembering Mahaprabhu? This makes no sense.

 

If he was instructing this person to forget trying to follow the specifics of the Catholic or some other Christian branch's form of worship I can understand that perfectly. The Bible also. When one graduates to a high class in school he doesn't continue to study the workbooks from last years grade. Trying to merge all practices into one can be varying confusing. This is different from recognizing the sameness when it appears or seeing how one stage of God realization is built upon another.

 

For me I think a better approach to Christians as a body would be to tell them to increase their rememberance of Christ and the Father. I would also like to see them take up beads and chant the Jesus prayer like the Eastern Orthodox do. Also how about offering fruits and flowers to a picture of Christ? Why not an offering of inscense like Frankinscense and Myhur(sp?) for his appearance day rememberance.

 

Forgetting advice sounds like needless negation instead of positive energy redirection.

 

But like I said I don't know the context this was spoken in while I do believe the statement was said and heard by Muralidhar.

[muralidhar_das 0]

Theist,

 

in regard to the "messiah", Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur was writing of the belief that God was born in this world as Jesus, and that he suffered because of the sins of humankind, and that by his suffering all those people (christians) who believe in him shall get to go to heaven.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected that proposition in his book Tattva Viveka. You can read the reasons for rejecting that proposition in Tattva Viveka. Indeed his reasons include the reasons that Pankaj Prabhu just mentioned.

 

A "messiah" coming from satyaloka or whatever is certainly conceivable. The four kumara boys, or brahmaji, may be regarded as messiahs, or Narada rishi. But the idea that people are saved by bathing in the "blood of the messiah" is another matter.

 

I find it bizarre, when people such as the Minister who lives across the street from me, tell me that Jesus died for our sins. According to them, we didn't even exist when Jesus was on earth, so how could he die for our sins if we hadn't done any sins yet?

What is more, if God is the Lord of the universe then didn't he plan the events that took place at Calvary, and isn't he ultimately responsible for the events that took place? And surely God must have realized that Adam and Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, so they weren't to blame for doing something wrong, either. Either God knew it would happen and planned it, or God is not omniscient, I might suggest. The Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas believe in free will and believe that the world is full of suffering because of the jiva's karma that is with them since time immemorial. This belief is based on the idea that the jiva is beginningless, but Christians don't believe in that - they believe God cast humankind out of Eden and that we are all suffering for the mistakes of Adam and Eve. Bizarre!

 

To be honest, I believe the story of adam and eve, and the resulting story that a saviour needed to be born to atone for their sins, is a complete fabrication. This is the logic of Bhaktivinode Thakur in Tattva Viveka.

 

[Guest guest]

finding problems with current Christian theology is not hard but we are back to the same thing, Jesus is not Christianity anymore than Prabhupada is present day Iskcon.

[muralidhar_das 0]

Guest,

I can accept that Jesus may be a great person, but I think the Bible is not a genuine scripture. It is a fabrication.

 

And Theist,

 

concerning Vasudeva Datta...

 

I have always been intruiged by that story in C.C.

 

When Vasudeva Datta said he wanted to punishment for all the sins of all the people in the world, Mahaprabhu says that he need not do that. Mahaprabhu said that it is not necessary for Vasudeva Datta to accept suffering in place of other people. The implication, I feel, is that Jesus didn't suffer and become a "sacrifice" for all of humankind. Maybe his immediate associates benefited from seeing what he did, and they became more dedicated to God. But other human beings suffer or attain salvation on account of what they themselves will do, and not because of Jesus sacrifice. It is really just to weird to think that God would incarnate and punish himself by planning and enduring crucifiction.

[krsna 3]

In order to reconcile the 'apparent' contradictions in teachings between the persons of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Jesus Christ. In tattva there are no contradictions, but only apparently ther seem to be because of cultural conditionings we see that the followers have long ago gone off the rails...

 

In truth God is God... .

 

Where can I read Bhaktivinoda's Tattva Vivika online?

[muralidhar_das 0]

The book is here

 

http://www.mandala.com.au/books/tattvaviveka.RTF

[krsna 3]

Tattva Viveka

an analysis of Western Philosophies

 

By Sri Thakur Bhaktivinoda

 

Prathamanubhava - Sadanusilanam

 

1) jayati saccidananda rasanubhava vigrahah procyate saccidanandanubhutiryat prasadath

 

All glories to Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Personality who tastes the transcendental mellow of eternity, knowledge and bliss - by whose mercy the realization of Sri Krishna the eternally existent transcendental Absolute Truth is explained in this book.

 

2) ko'ham va kimidam visvabhavayoh ko'nvayoh dhruvam atmanam nivrto jivah prcchati jnanasiddhaye

 

After many many lifetimes the living entity who is wise develops the following inquiries:

 

a) Who am I?

b) What is this material existence in reality?

c) What is the actual relationship between me and this creation?

 

3) atma prakrtivaicitryaddadati citramuttaram svasvrupasthito hyatma dadati yuktamuttaram

 

<font color="red"> The conditioned soul due to influence of the variegatedness of external illusory energy, gives multifarious (contradictory) answers, whereas the soul who is situated in his constitutional position gives united, (absolute) Krishna conscious answers. </font color>

 

The basic variation is due to the contamination of conditioning, and then due to the various places, languages and origins the variations become multifarious. But scientifically they can be divided into two, speculative, jnana and fruitive, karma.

Jnana is the visual faculty of the conditioned soul to discriminate between the eternal and transient objects.

 

(1) upholds the material character by revealing the beginninglessness and the universal aboriginality of the matter.

 

(2) analytically denies the existence of the matter and establishes a featureless doctrine of Brahman without any qualities.

 

Karma is the atheistic activity of the fallen souls in cultivating the material association by means of the gross body.

 

[muralidhar_das 0]

Zarathustra is a very ancient philosopher. When his philosophy found no honor in India, Zarathustra preached it in Iran. It was by the influence of Zarathustra's ideas that Satan, an equally-powerful rival to God, made his imaginary appearance first in the religion of the Jews and then in the religion based on the Koran. Then, influenced by Zarathustra's idea of two Gods, the idea of three gods, or a "Trinity" made its appearance in the religion that had come from the Jewish religion. At first they were considered three Gods, but then, when the philosophers were displeased with that idea, the Trinity became God, the Holy Ghost, and Christ.

 

-- from the commentary to verse 21 of Tattva Viveka, by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur

 

<hr>

The "two gods" of Zoaraster are Satan and Yahweh. Moses made a bronze serpent idol that the Jews worshipped for a thousand years, and at that time the serpent energy was believed to be the "power of god". But later Jewish prophets had a different vision of things and they destroyed the snake idol made by Moses.

 

When the Jewish people who were captives in the city of Babylon, where Zoaraster's religion was followed, they began to believe that their Lord Yahweh must appear on earth as an incarnation, or Messiah, in order to set the world in order and defeat Satan, and consequently the people began thinking there were many gods, or aspects of God. Next, an all pervading aspect of god, the holy ghost was imagined to exist, as a complement to the human incarnation or Messiah, who appears to be limited, since he is living in a human form of limited size. Hence in Christianity you have the Father, son and ghost -- and an anti-god called satan.

 

[theist 1]

The activities of the messiah and the fact of messiah are two different issues.

 

The atonement idea has been really perverted in my view. It is the same idea that came down from the animal sacrifice idea present in old Jewish culture (as well as vedic)that by sacrifices some innocent animal such as a lamb, that would make the person clean of sin in God's eyes. So the Christians have extended that onto jesus with themselves as the beneficaries.

 

Still is it not true from the vaisnava viewpoint that when the guru accepts a disciple that disciple is then forgiven of much of his past sin and given a new start. Isn't that part of rebirth? All or what proportion I have no idea.

 

Prabhupada mentions that the guru will sometimes experience nightmares from this and even illness from his disciples continuing in sin. I read the first and heard

(perhaps incorrectly) the second.

 

My understanding of Christ's act on the cross was that he was simulataneously taking on that suffering in the place of those that would become his disciples and also showing the way of spiritual life which is sacrifice ones *worldly* self to fullfill the will of the Father.

 

In any case, and I apologize in advance for anyone who becomes upset at this question as I know some will, but I will ask it in the spirit of honest questioning and examination of the path and teachers (ijtihad as the Muslims call it).

 

How does Bhaktisiddhanta claim to know that Jesus Christ was unwilling to suffer for in the same way as Vasudeva Datta?

[Guest guest]

Srila Sridhar maharaja expressed his appreciation for Srila Prabhupada's work as follows.

He has dome a miracle! shaktyavesa avatar I take him to be. Otherwise, it is not possible. he was empowered by Nityananda Prabhu to preach and by Vyasa to write so many books. So, syaktyavesa avatar I take him to be.

 

Nowhere did i find in the post nor in gurumaharaja's words any mention of SP being equated with Christ. I saw the suggestion to think about it - never that my gurumaharaja supported the notion.

 

I have posted that there were many points that point to the possibility, but neither am I sure he is the return. I stronglysuspect he is. moreover, we could consider that Jesus does not have to be named Jesus again. in fact, his coming as a thief in the night, points to the fact he appears in a totally different guise. he says that few will recognise him. All those that deny the possibility belong then in that category of those who are unable to recognise, by his own admission.

Of course this becomes then a circular argument that leads nowhere. I have said what I wanted and for me the case is clear. what everyone else thinks and feels is his own responsibility, don't you think? Gurumaharaja also told us to be independent thinkers. that is what these forums are for, is it not?

VdK.

[Guest guest]

these two gods are not satan and jaweh, but Ahura mazda and Arihman. please Muralidhar, you may have great knowledge of the vaisnava scriptures, but when discussing other beliefs, stick to the facts. jaweh and satan are the gods of the jews, and are considerably older than Zoroaster, who lived 8000 years ago.

Zoroaster is from the Age of Gemini, with the twingods as reflection of that era. his ideas were gone 1400 years later.

Yrs, VdK.

[Guest guest]

Once I asked gurumaharaja and he said that the guru takes away that karma which pulls you away from krsna, but that the karma that pushes you in his direction, you will still suffer.

Of course provided you do not create the same stuff anew.

VdK.

[theist 1]

I have long sensed that but was never able to find words for it or any such direct reference. That explains why it is both obvious that karma is lifted and yet obvious that karma remains.

 

I can't tell you what joy that brings to have that clarifed.

 

Hare Krsna

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Oh yeah, I find in Maharaja books that He reveals so much insight even things other devotees don't reveal. Anyway I will paste this, you can download this book on-line.

 

 

It's a long conversation I'll paste this here, what I got from it was that like many devotees i.e The Greatest example I can give in Lord Shiva, even He desires to be with Rasa-lila of Krishna. So on that note read along..

 

 

 

From The search for Krishna..

By BR Sridhara maharaja:...

 

Way of the Pilgrim

</p>

Christian: There is one book called The Way of The Pilgrim, about a Christian

who chants the name of Jesus on beads.

</p>

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, the Catholics also use beads. Some Christians

may chant the name of Christ.

</p>

Christian: This man was chanting the name of Jesus, his heart was growing

soft, and he was feeling ecstasy, great love for Jesus.

</p>

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It

may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the

eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest

satisfaction, he is fated to be there.

</p>

By the will of God, and by the powerful will of an exalted devotee, even from

the impersonal Brahman effulgence one may be roused from his slumber and

moved to action in devotional service. Generally, they pass long ages there in

the nondifferentiated plane, satisfied with their spiritual attainment; however, in

the consideration of infinite time, nothing is very great or spacious. They may

remain holding that position for a long time, so many dissolutions and creations

may come and go, but the possibility remains that their slumber may be broken

at any time. Since time immemorial, this created world has been in existence,

and so many souls are ascending to the Brahman effulgence and again

descending. So, even in the midst of the infinite Brahman effulgence, some

souls are coming out. It is a question of infinity, so the position of Jesus may be

considered as eternal, and the time may come when Jesus himself may be

converted into Vaisnavism. Itis not impossible.

</p>

 

 

 

</p>

 

Jesus: Dynamic or Static?

</p>

Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Krsna as the Personality of

Godhead?

</p>

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: When his inner attainment is most closely detected,

then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some

possibility of his achieving Krsna.

</p>

Christian: I don't understand.

</p>

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Is Jesus stagnant or progressive? Where he has

reached, is that finished forever, or is he dynamic?

</p>

Christian: Christians will say that he has full knowledge.

</p>

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: So, is he stagnant there, finally fixed? Is that Jesus'

position? Do the bishops say that his position is final? Does he have a

progressive life? Or is Jesus alone barred from making further progress? Is he a

member of the dynamic world? Or the stagnant world? So, this is the nature of

the infinite. Being finite, we are going to deal with the infinite? That is our

ludicrous tendency. It is ludicrous for us to deal with the infinite. Why is Krsna

considered to be the Absolute Truth? This you should inquire about in a

scientific way, step by step. As I have recommended, you should go on reading

about that in the Sri Krsna Samhita, and the Brhad Bhagavatamrta. You should

try to follow very minutely the dynamic development of theism as it is presented

there.

 

[theist 1]

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It

may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the

eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest

satisfaction, he is fated to be there.

 

 

He may or may not remain there but that does not preclude any souls attainment of realization of the Supreme Person. He is there with Jesus on what Prabhupada calls Christ-loka, now Who do you think they will talk about? Who do you think Christ will teach about? Who do you think is served there?

[theist 1]

 

Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Krsna as the Personality of

Godhead?

 

 

 

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: When his inner attainment is most closely detected,

then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some

possibility of his achieving Krsna.

 

 

He obviously disagrees with Srila Prabhupada who said Jesus Christ came directly from the spiritual world. He is putting forth a picture of some bound soul working his way upward. I totally and unequivically reject that viewpoint.

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

That Christ is in Vaithuntaloka. So this means Not in Goloka. My goal is not Vaithuntaloka at all. What would I do there? Anyway..

 

Edit. I'm sort of joking in my neophyte way. But I am a Krishna devotee [i don't want it any other way]. There Rasa etc, like Sakya can only have with Krishna. So there you go.

[Guest guest]

He may or may not remain there but that does not preclude any souls attainment of realization of the Supreme Person. He is there with Jesus on what Prabhupada calls Christ-loka, now Who do you think they will talk about? Who do you think Christ will teach about? Who do you think is served there?

 

Excuse me but i can't help but enter your exchange if i may.

It's a deep topic and can't but be partially speculative due to the lack of shastra that unites these two currants of conception.

If Christianity were to give some extended insight into the further evolution of the soul of Jesus by living revelation of present day acharyas in that line in the last 2000 years it would help. Of coarse there are many who have come in his name and revealed different takes on his present position but that is not excepted in the various lines that only except the revealed Truth within the framework and record of the Bible in it's various forms.

Who is to say there hasn't been deeper revelations and pastimes since he appeared 2000 years ago. Many have speculated that he has returned a number of times since his departure in Calvary physicly, mysticly, spiritually, so many views and accounts are there .

 

If there is such a place as Christ Loka, and I don't doubt it, I just don't know, but I've always thought that an elevated soul who has some degree of purity can be rewarded with a planetary system to look after like Druva-loka etc

I don't think it is such a big deal to Ananya-bhaktas like Srila Sridara Maharaj, Srila Bhaktisiddanta or Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, I feel their vision is far more extensive and realized than the Christian concept of Divinity.

Unlike us, Jesus couldn't draw from the vedic conclusions and preach such to his Judaic audience as they would have labelled him an heretic and stopped him in his tracks a lot sooner than they did.

After all he was only giving a very basic package to the covered consciouness of the times, albeit a mostly neat and applicable set of instructions to live a good, honest and pious life. It was definately progressive from the earlier teachings of Moses, but in all honesty nowhere near the example of Mahaprabhu and his entourage.

Thesis-antithesis and synthesis is the way of progress to reach the revealed Truth. Even if a great liberated soul chooses to administer a planet in the heavenly planets. Depending on their desire and exposure to great souls they may or may not remember Krsna there, as many great Demi-gods such as Lord Brahma and Lord Siva and their followers forget Krsna is Swayam Bhagavan the Supreme original personality of Godhead momentarily, which can mean a hundred thousand years in our understanding. That doesn't mean that they don't have a conception of Divinity.

It's a little like say Hanuman falling in love with the ideal of Lord Rama as the only God and not being able to see anything else, even tho Krsna loka exists, they have no charm for that conception.

Jesus was particularly attracted to God as the Father and all that reach this Christ loka will probably be aligned to that relationship. It may well be an extra ordinarily beautiful place where all those rewards of heaven are an everyday reality for the dedicated 'Christians', and relatively satisfying to most that reach that level. But to one who has heard from a pure Krsna bhakta that existence may not bring eternal fullfillment.

 

I've noticed how many Christian souls altho faithful to their master and ideal have a vague concept of the inner depths of divinity. That is 'Heaven' is good enough, the question of further sacrifice doesn't arise whereas the vaisnavas life is endless sacrifice . It depends on exactly where that planetary system of Christ may be as to what form of dedication and remembrance and practice they will execute throughout their life in that dimension and time of service.

Due to the jiva's eternal free will until they transcend the heavenly realms, and serve beyond Vaikuntha they may be fallible and not necessarily worship or serve Visnu as the vaishnavas do. As one becomes a vaishnava we become specific in our seva. It is not a nebulous thing rather focused on the various names and attributes of God. If Jesus isn't directing their focus to the Krsna conception then they will happily remain in their heavenly existence. This is what Srila Sridhar Maharaj means when he says, "Jesus may become a vaishnava at some point in his eternal journey towards the Absolute." Jesus may well have a deep understanding and relationship with God but it can be similar to that of the demigods especially Lord Brahma whom Prabhupad likened him to, the first begotten son.

 

The spiritual world is a vast and spacious conception with varying degrees of realization and relationships.

 

As Srila Sridhar Maharaj has stated, "Who is my Lord, what is his nature, who am I, what is my inner self and what is my inner connection with him, how can I live continuously in his memory and service" The conception that we are meant for him designed and destined for him is laudable, but it must be clarified, we must attain the highest position. All these things are absent in Christianity. Only sacrifice for the Lord is given, it is the basic necessity of the soul, but after that, what is to be achieved? They are silent.

 

Christian: They are afraid to go beyond Jesus.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, but there is so much love and divinity that God can sit on our lap and embrace us, and a much more intimate connection is unfolded in vaishnavism.

 

We also find there is very little offering process within the Christian conception, rather Jesus is instructing at the last supper to remember him through the offerings of bread and wine. Even if these are symbolic still it is not directing our attention to offering everything wholesale to his father who sent him. Many things are there, even doubt in those last moments when he believed his Lord had forsaken him. Unlike Mahaprabhu's prayers, you may treat me as you wish, still you will be my Lord birth after birth. This is the example of vaishnavism's unconditional endless love for God.

 

This also doesn't imply that if Jesus were to return in this day and age in whatever form that he wouldn't gravitate to the progressive Krsna conception of Mahaprabhu, as he may have done in the case of Haridas Thakur. In that case he may well have taken birth in a Muslim conception for lila's sake and shown the most glorious departure from this world to be reunited in the pastimes of Krsnaloka, not necessarily Christ loka.

 

Regarding the different conceptions of Srila Sridhar Maharaj and Prabhupad, I'm sure if they spoke of Jesus' position in their spiritual exchanges which I'm not sure if they did, but as Srila Guru Maharaj would say of Swami Maharaj, "some things we share in common while a little difference is there." Just as this is so with my Godbrothers debating on this topicmay be acintya bedha abedha. But generally, on most things, as he stated, "he is my siksa guru."

 

I would like to know the context in which this Christ loka statement of Srila Prabhupads was made.

 

 

[theist 1]

Maybe I will answer in more detail tomorrow or perhaps not. I would provide the quote on Christ-loka but I just changed computers and haven't installed vedabase on this one yet. Maybe someone else can.

 

One mistaken conception I hear all the time is the presumption that Christ revealed His relationship with Krsna and only as Father. Neither I nor you know what his relationship really is. We only know what a tiny portion of what he taught those in that region.

 

It's similar to claiming Buddha was a sakyavesa avatar and then thinking he meditated on the void all day.

[muralidhar_das 0]

Theist and others,

 

I feel I should withdraw from this discussion, and I don't want to offend anyone.

 

Everyone has different views of God and every person's view should be respected. I personally have no faith in Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Confucius or Buddha. But others have their own insights and they are probably more deep insights than what I've had.

 

Hare Krishna

[theist 1]

I was going to withdraw as well. I have stated my doubts over the words of souls whose foot dust I am not fit to approach. It was an honest expression and I feel right to do so but to carry it on and risk offenses to them while disturbing the minds of their disciples would only court disaster. In fact it was the first thing that came to mind when I woke up this morning which I am taking as superior guidance.

 

pranamas to all

[Guest guest]

 

Also, there is one Sannyasi devotee called Bhakti Madhurya Bon Maharaj who used to be a priest in Rome, and who later became a Vaishnava and disciple of Srila Sridhar Maharaj. After he became a Vaishnava, Srila Sridhar Maharaj told this Bon Maharaj to forget Jesus. That was Srila Sridhar Maharaj's opinion about Jesus and Christianity. Forget it.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj was quite direct and determined on this point. He told Bon Maharaj, "Forget Jesus, and just worship Mahaprabhu". I was there when this happened.

 

 

I have to admit I respect his position. It takes courage to stand up for truth (even personal truth), rather than merely saying something to appease one's audience.

 

Also, one point in response to something said earlier about "revealed knowledge" in relation to Jesus Christ. "Revealed knowledge" really refers to what is in shruti, i.e. what was "revealed" to the seers. As far as I know, Jesus is not mentioned in these revelations, and thus I think it is inappropriate to refer to knowledge of him as "shaktyavesha avatar" as "revealed." This is not a statement of its correctness or lack thereof, but merely the point that there is "revealed knowledge" (of shruti) and other kinds of knowledge, and these two should not be confused.

 

Also, in reference to

How can it be said Jesus was only willing to suffer for his followers and not evryone else? On what basis has Bhaktisiddhanta determined this?

 

 

:

 

I can't speak for Bhaktisiddhanata Saraswati, but in much of Judeo-Christian literature that I have reviewed, there is noticeable theme of "chosen people" which occurs time and again. Perhaps Bhaktisiddhanta was referring to this sort of ethnic exclusivity.

 

 

 

[sumedh 0]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

Theistji,

 

How does Bhaktisiddhanta claim to know that Jesus Christ was unwilling to suffer for in the same way as Vasudeva Datta?

 

 

 

Somehow i find this question sounding more like an opinion rather than a question. The correct answer to this question of course would be that Srila BhaktiSiddhanta is not a conditioned soul like the rest of us who is subject to illusion or cheating propensities. I find it inconsistent when you immediately accept without questioning Srila Prabhupada's statements which state that Jesus is an empowered jiva but have grave doubts as regards some other statements regarding Jesus; it seems to be a biased way of accepting what appeals. As far as i know none of the other vaishnava acharyas have accepted Jesus as an empowered incarnation, and it is not difficult to find a large number of differences between bhagavata siddhanta and Jesus' words as expressed in Bible (there are similarities but the differences are also quite prominent) e.g. regarding Form(s) of Lord or jiva/maya/cit sakti or hell/satan etc; so questioning that would be more logical. I find it hard to understand as to how you would claim to know the historical Jesus any more than as expressed in Bible or as in the words of Srila Prabhupada/BhaktiSiddhanta.

 

Any other rational explanation would count as speculation. However, i would like to offer the following. Jesus does not express the sentiment of Srila Vasudeva Datta i.e. praying to his Father to give him all the sins of all the living entities and let him suffer for eternity. The words or sentiments of a pure devotee like Srila Vasudeva Datta are as good as Truth. So one can turn the question around and ask how one can claim that Jesus would also be willing to take sins of all the beings when his words give no such hint; in other words their moods are different and pure devotees can compare the moods like what is done for different kinds of rasas.

 

 

Jesus Christ gave the example of pure unmotivated service when before the crucifixtion he prayed "not my will but Thy will be done".

 

 

 

I would agree that this is the spirit of surrender and in some sense the starting point of gaudiya philosophy. However, the point of how to develop the love, to know and execute "Thy will" etc. is covered scantily at best in the words of Jesus as expressed in Bible.

 

 

He obviously disagrees with Srila Prabhupada who said Jesus Christ came directly from the spiritual world. He is putting forth a picture of some bound soul working his way upward. I totally and unequivically reject that viewpoint.

 

 

 

Satyaloka is not spiritual world. I do not agree with your judgement that the picture being presented is that of a bound soul working his way upward. In this context it would be useful to remember liberated souls like the four Kumaras who themselves were empowered incarnations (of transcendental knowledge!) or Srila Sukadeva or even Uddhava who "worked their way upward" in some sense. There are many kinds of empowered incarnations mentioned in Bhagavatam 1.13 (particularly 1.13.26/27) for example. A liberated soul does not imply Krishna's associate in Vraja.

 

haribol

[theist 1]

I am fighting the urge to respond but yet I must control that urge.

 

I have decided to pull out of this one.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

Sumedh is correct. Theist, you don't like Sridhar Swami disagreeing with Srila Prabhupada, but you yourself reserve the right to question Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's view as expressed in the Bhaktivedanta purport you alluded to earlier.

 

If you are entitled to your opinion, then surely Sridhar Swami is entitled to his. In all honesty, you are simply accepting the opinions you find personally appealing. But when the same sources say something about Jesus you do not like, you will question it.

 

There is a lot of attachment for Jesus in the Western Gaudiya Vaishnava community. It should not cloud one's thinking. I have seen "Gaudiya Vaishnavas" criticizing Bhaktivinod Thakur for his remarks against Christianity in Tattva Viveka. We need to be objective, rather than simply condemning anyone who does not feed into our personal biases.