Titile or name

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

Translators of the Hebrew texts into English have really done a miservice by translating the name of God, Jehovah as "Lord" over 5,000 times. Where it says Lord in the English Bible it should say Jehovah.

 

Things get lost in time due to mistranslations and in this case what gets lost is the name of God, Jehovah.

 

God is like refering to the King by saying King. Or the president by saying president. It has a sense of distance to it, almost impersonal.

 

Other names get watered down and their original intent gets lost like the name Jesus. Yes we know who it refers to but what is lost is the fact that Christ' name, Yeshua, actually means Jehovah saves.

 

 

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FATHER? YAHWEH

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE SON? YAHWEH HASHUA

 

 

Note: The shortened form of the name "YAHWEH HASHUA" is "Yeshua" which literally means "Jehovah Saves."

 

 

A good example: My Son's name is Nathaniel but we always call him Nathan for short. So likewise, the proper name for Yeshua is "Yahweh Hashua" but they always called his name "Yeshua" for short.

 

 

The point is that Yeshua or now Jesus actually is the Supreme Lords name similar to Mukunda. So by asking Christians to chant the name of Yeshua or Jesus we are asking them to chant Krishna or Vishnu's name at the same time as they chant as the shaktya-vesa avatar Jesus' name.

 

One and different. This is Vaisnavism. To ignore the Father's name in the equation as Supreme is incomplete.

 

Jai Yeshua! Jai Krishna!

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Krishna Name is principal name, Christ NAME is Krishna's name. It's the same, Jesus name is not same as Krishna Name. But when you put Jesus Christ together it's potent. Just like I read Prabhupada said you don't chant 'Prabhupada, Prabhupada, Prabhupada in Japa'.

 

Like Paramatma means Supersoul, but it's not the principal name of God. Maybe somebody else can explain it better.

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

Krishna has unlimited names is my point. You can say Christ came from Krsna as Prabhupada has also said that. But on what basis can you say Yeshua is not a name of God when clearly it is?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I never said Yeshua is not a name of God?

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

Try the title of your last post. Yeshua is wherefrom the name Jesus is derived.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

It is name of the Son of God, just like Prabhupada is not the Name of God.

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

But Prabhupada is not a name exactly it is a title. If you say Srila Prabhupada to one of Bhaktisiddhanta's diciples they will think of Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

But more to what I was meaning. Say you know some devotee whose name Mukunda das. You see him often and just call him Mukunda, but you are not calling Mukunda the supreme Lord, you are calling Mukunda the devotee. That doesn't mean the name Mukunda in that moment is no longer a name for the Supreme Personality.

 

Now when a shaktya-vesa avatar who is fully one with Krishna in loving service has a name like Krishna das and you call him as Krishna leaving off the das but referring to Him you are in reality not just referring to him because he and the Supreme Lord are one.

 

All I am saying is that oneness and difference with the Supreme Lord is also present in the name Yeshua.

 

Now you say the name Jesus is just a derivitive of the name Yeshua so it's not the same. If that were true it would also be true for the name Christ which you say is the same.

 

Do you see what I mean?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Jesus is not the same as Krishna Name. Christ is. Krishna is the PRINCIPLE Name of God. Because Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. WI don't know much about Yeshua Name, but if you say it's Name of God, then I believe you.

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

Hare Krishna

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

March 12, 1972, Vrindavana

 

Prabhupada: There is a book, perhaps you might have read, Aquarian Gospel. So in that book I have read there is a Greek word, Christo. Christo... Sometimes we don't say Krishna, we say Krishta.

 

Dr. Kapoor: Krishta, yes, in Bengali particularly.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. So this Christo word means "anointed." Krishna's face is anointed. And love also. And this Christ title was given to Jesus on account of his love for God. So on the whole, the conclusion is Krishna or Christo means "love of Godhead."

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I was trying to see what it meant, I am not sure what anointed means. Prabhupada says that Krishna also means 'Love of Godhead' was trying to figure out what that meant, then i thought who is 'Love of Godhead' GAURANGA!

 

Guru gets love from Gauranga. First time in ages, something made me think hard.

[Guest guest]

 

Sri Brahma Samhita, Verse 1:

isvarah paramah krsna satchidananda vigraha

anadir adir govinda sarva karana karaman

 

Translation

Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

 

Commentary of Sri Jiva Goswami.

 

Krsna is the most important name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as is explained in the Padma Purana, Prabhasa-khanda, where, in a conversation between Narada and Kusadhvaja, the following words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are repeated:

 

"O Arjuna, of all My holy names, Krsna is the most important."

 

The importance of the name Krsna is also confirmed in the Brahmanda Purana, Sri Krsnastottara-sata-nama-stotra, where Lord Krsna says:

 

"The pious results derived from chanting the thousand names of Lord Visnu three times can be attained by only one repetition of the holy name of Krsna."

 

---------------------

 

Is chanting the name "Christ" equal to chanting one of the names of Visnu?

 

Have any Acharyas ever said this?

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

I am unable to ascertain the varieties of potency or rasas that may come from any given Holy Name.

 

Is Vamana more powerful Varaha? I have no idea.

[Guest guest]

quote:

<hr>

March 12, 1972, Vrindavana

 

Prabhupada: There is a book, perhaps you might have read, Aquarian Gospel. So in that book I have read there is a Greek word, Christo. Christo... Sometimes we don't say Krishna, we say Krishta.

 

Dr. Kapoor: Krishta, yes, in Bengali particularly.

 

Prabhupada: Yes. So this Christo word means "anointed." Krishna's face is anointed. And love also. And this Christ title was given to Jesus on account of his love for God. So on the whole, the conclusion is Krishna or Christo means "love of Godhead."

<hr>

 

Srila Prabhupada doesn't say that "Christ" is the same as "Christo" or Krishna, the holy name and sound "Krishna".

 

If any sound at all were actually the same as "Krishna" then it would mean people get equal benefit chanting "God Jah, God Jah, Jah Jah, God God, God Yahweh God ... etc" and that this is the equal in potency to the Hare Krishna Mahamantra. That is ridiculous

 

Christo is a different sound from "Jesus" to. They are not equivalent or equal.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Also, there is this too:

http://www.iskcon.com/basics/tenoffences.html

 

Check out offence number six:

<hr>

6. Giving some mundane interpretation (hari-namni kalpanam)

 

* To think that chanting creates a chemical reaction in the brain and simply produces some euphoric effect.

* Thinking that Hari means impersonal Brahman, Krishna refers to the mind, and Rama means satisfaction etc.

* To define the holy name of the Lord in terms of one's mundane calculation.

<hr>

 

It is actually considered an offence to interpret the Name by saying things such as "the name Krishna means...." Because the Name Krishna means just one thing - "Krishna".

 

 

 

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

A couple of things.

 

One you kindly pointed out my offence to the holy name and that would not surprise me in the least as it is my habit to so offend. But if you would you show me where and how I have made such an offense then and only then will I be able to correct it. So please do so.

 

 

Please consider the following and then tell me if you want to amend your statement below.

 

 

It is actually considered an offence to interpret the Name by saying things such as "the name Krishna means...." Because the Name Krishna means just one thing - "Krishna".

 

 

The word "Krishna'' means "All Attractive,'' so where you get the foreign element in Krishna? Does it mean that He is attractive for all except yourself? And if He is not attractive to you, why it is so?-- Letter LA 1970

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

 

If any sound at all were actually the same as "Krishna" then it would mean people get equal benefit chanting "God Jah, God Jah, Jah Jah, God God, God Yahweh God ... etc" and that this is the equal in potency to the Hare Krishna Mahamantra. That is ridiculous

 

 

You are arguing against a point that was not made. That is not helpful to the discussion.

 

Yes. You should not whimisically make up mantras. I am glad you realized that before it was too late.

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

This excerpt is on page 58 of the Vrajraj press edition.

 

(While discussing the Hare Krishna Maha mantra)

 

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna

Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama

Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

"It is the duty of swanlike people to take shelter of these names while accepting the previously mentioned twelve truths. Swanlike people of foreign countries whose languages and social positions are different should accept these holy names in their own language by taking a hint from this mantra. This means that in the process of worshipping this mantra there should be no complex scientific consideration, useless argument, or any type of direct or indirect prayer. If there is any prayer at all, it should be aimed at advancing one's love for God. Then it will be faultless.

[Guest guest]

Yes,

 

The name "Krishna" should be accepted and understood by people who speak foreign languages. Those people should begin to learn about Krishna and chant the name "Krishna". Please accept the name "Krishna" as the supreme name of the Lord!

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

That is very clever but you should understand that the words whose meanings you are attempting to twist were written by Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

Personally I like the Maha-mantra in it's present form. That is my attraction but others for whatever reason may have another attraction. You apparently have have a certain prejudice against names of God in other languages. They may have the same. So go with what you are familiar with hopefully without making offenses to names for the Lord in other languages unless you think pouring water on a fire while trying to light it is an intelligent approach.

 

The principle that Bhaktivinode is putting forth is that whatever names one chooses to chant should be free from mundane petitions.

 

"If there is any prayer at all, it should be aimed at advancing one's love for God. Then it will be faultless."

 

 

 

That means not chanting to get rid of our sinful reactions, or for peace in the world, or liberation even. We are to beg for pure love of God only.

[Guest guest]

Yesu, you are the one who is misinterpreting the statement you have quoted.

 

The quotes says, firstly, "It is the duty of swanlike people to take shelter of these names while accepting the previously mentioned twelve truths."

 

What he says is perfectly clear.

 

Bhaktivinode Thakur clearly says, "Oh swan-like people, chant these names of God. Chant Hare Krishna!"

 

Then he says to people that they should accept or include these names in their own language. And of course this is what happens now. People who are native Spanish or English speakers are now chanting Hare Krishna but with their own voices and accents. Spanish people say "Hare Kreesna", and my Guru would smile when he heard this.

 

What irks me is your suggestion, Yesu, that if someone is chanting "Allahu akbar" then their chanting is the same as when a suddha-Vaishnava is chanting Hare Krishna.

 

Pardon me for asking, but have you received diksa (initiation) into the chanting of Sri Hari Nama from a genuine Guru? In 1976, Srila Prabhupada instructed me, personally, "Chant Hare Krishna, follow the four regulative principles, and thoroughly read and assimilate my books". But can I ask you, really, what basis of authority do you have for saying "You apparently have have a certain prejudice against names of God in other languages" or your other statements to the effect that Allah is the same as Krishna. I am not "prejudiced", I am only saying that the people who were saying "Alahu akbar" when they are tearing down temples in Mathura or pluging into the world trade centre were not chanting the name of the Real God. In regards to Krishna, they haven't got a clue.

 

- m.das.

 

[Guest guest]

(I) In the Brihad-Vishnu-Sahasranama-Stotra, Uttara-khanda, Padma Purana (72.335) it is said:

 

raMa raMaeiTa raMaeiTa rMae raMae MaNaaerMae

Sahó NaaMa i>aSTauLYa& raMaNaaMa vraNaNae

 

räma rämeti rämeti rame räme manorame

sahasra-nämabhis tulyaà räma-näma varänane

 

Lord Siva addressed his wife, Durga: “O Varanana (lovely-faced woman), I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama, Rama, Rama and thus constantly enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramacandra is equal to one thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu.”

 

(II) In the Padma Purana it is mentioned:

 

ivZ<aaerekE-k- NaaMaaiPa SavR vedaiDak-MMaTaMa(

Tad( NaaMa Sahóe<a raMa NaaMa SaMaSMa*TaMa(

 

viñëor ekaika nämäpi sarva vedädhikam matam

tadrk näma sahasreëa räma näma samasmåtam

 

“Each Name of Lord Vishnu is greater and more potent than the entire Vedas combined together, and Lord Rama’s Name alone is more superior that a thousand Names of Lord Vishnu.”

 

(III) In the Brahmäëda Puräëa it is stated:

 

SahóNaaMNaa& Pau<YaaNaa& i}arav*tYaa Tau YaTf-l/Ma(

Wk-av*tYaa Tau k*-Z<aSYa NaaMaEk&- TaTPa[YaC^iTa

 

sahasra-nämnäà puëyänäà trir-ävåttyä tu yat phalam

ekävåttyä tu kåñëasya nämaikaà tat prayacchati

 

“And the pious results (punya) achieved by chanting the thousand holy names of Vishnu (Vishnu-sahasra-nama-stotram) three times or the Holy Name of Rama thrice can be attained by only one utterance of the Holy Name of Krishna.”

 

(IV) Prabhasa Khanda of Padma Purana states:

 

NaaMNaaMMau:YaaTarMNaaMa k*-Z<aa:YaMMae ParNTaPa

Pa[aYaiSctaMaXaeze<aMPaaPaaNaMMaaeck-MParMa(

 

nämnäm mukhyätaram näma

kåñëäkhyam me parantapa

präyascittam açeñeëam päpänam mocakam param

 

“O Arjuna, the Holy Name of Krishna is the most principal (mukhyataram) among all Names of God. One can atone for unlimited sinful deeds by chanting the Name of Krishna which is the supreme destroyer of all sins.”

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

""It is the duty of swanlike people to take shelter of these names while accepting the previously mentioned twelve truths. Swanlike people of foreign countries whose languages and social positions are different should accept these holy names in their own language by taking a hint from this mantra. This means that in the process of worshipping this mantra there should be no complex scientific consideration, useless argument, or any type of direct or indirect prayer. If there is any prayer at all, it should be aimed at advancing one's love for God. Then it will be faultless. "

 

 

M.das Then he says to people that they should accept or include these names in their own language. And of course this is what happens now. People who are native Spanish or English speakers are now chanting Hare Krishna but with their own voices and accents. Spanish people say "Hare Kreesna", and my Guru would smile when he heard this.

 

 

 

I understand how you hear this and I can also see it in that way. But I don't believe that is what he is saying.

 

"Swanlike people of foreign countries whose languages and social positions are different should accept these holy names in their own language by taking a hint from this mantra. "

 

The word in is used instead of into. Therein I see the difference.

 

Do you think the Lord is only present in Sanskrit or Hindi? I don't think that way.

 

 

 

 

What irks me is your suggestion, Yesu, that if someone is chanting "Allahu akbar" then their chanting is the same as when a suddha-Vaishnava is chanting Hare Krishna.

 

 

 

What irks me is that I never said or suggested anything that ridiculous and for you to state that i did is a strawman waste of both our time.

 

 

Pardon me for asking, but have you received diksa (initiation) into the chanting of Sri Hari Nama from a genuine Guru?

 

 

 

None of your business

 

 

{quote]In 1976, Srila Prabhupada instructed me, personally, "Chant Hare Krishna, follow the four regulative principles, and thoroughly read and assimilate my books".

 

 

[Guest guest]

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah

 

You need to follow this instruction.

 

I did, in 1976

[Yesu_Bhaktan 0]

It is not for me to say which name is superior to whatever name. Just like different forms of the Lord may be more attractive or intimate than others but I don't try to qualify them myself.

 

So Krishna may be three times more powerful than Rama. I am not trying to equate one with another. I simply say all Names of God are Krishna because Krishna is God.

 

Let's not play "I say one and you say different.I say different and you say one." That is not very productive.