Historical evidence

[Guest guest]

should get treatment first.lol.

[Guest guest]

*Cheeeesus, even according to your fav. bible, was born out of wedlock. His mother was mary and father..hahaha...unholy ghost or in other words, unknown. That makes cheeeesus a bastard son of Mary.

 

*Don't worry about how I use my words, sonny. That's NOT the subject matter of this thread. Focus on the subject, sonny. Or if you're offended, I'll call you 'reverend freak show.'

 

*You deserve no respect, because you're an iskcnite freak.

[Guest guest]

can't post anything more than one-liners. But then again, one can't expect too much from hippies, he-he!

[Avinash 0]

You are behaving like somebody completely insane. If I want, I can also become offensive. But, I am not like you.

 

>>Cheeeesus, even according to your fav. bible, was born out of wedlock. His mother was mary and father..hahaha...unholy ghost or in other words, unknown. That makes cheeeesus a bastard son of Mary.<<

 

What about Pandavas who were not born of Pandu?

 

>>You deserve no respect, because you're an iskcnite freak.<<

 

I do not expect any respect from you because I do not expect any respect from an insane person.

[Kulapavana 0]

11_7: "Why are you so defensive? I never claimed to be anything or anybody. I never faked anything. I only raise the doubts I have about Hinduism and Vaishnavism and hope to generate some intelligent conversation and discussion. Can't you take anyone disagreeing with you?"

--------

 

it seems to me that you fake an interest in our tradition in order to criticize it. which may be fine from the perspective of tolerance, but which also for me is just a:

 

WASTE OF TIME

 

 

you said you want "to generate some intelligent conversation and discussion". I gave you the issue of historicity of Jesus - a very well known and studied topic. you did not find it stimulating enough to grace it with a one line reply. why? because you are NOT interested in intelligent conversation and discussion... only in criticizing our tradition.

 

so... you are wasting our time. I have run into scores of guys like you and have very little appreciation for your game.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Cheeesus-lovers have given you such a bashing that you are bending over backwards to please them. I will pray to Krishna to liberate you from this misery.

[Guest guest]

Simply because you have been offended by poseurs pretending to follow Jesus, you will offend Jesus Christ? This is not rational. Nor is it rational to judge Sri Krsna based on the behaviour of anyone claiming to be His bhakta.

 

Do not place yourself above Jesus Christ. Krsna abhors such arrogance. Do not distance yourself farther from Sri Krsna. You must act in a way that He will want to be with you. Then will he be with you.

[Guest guest]

Kulapavanna,

 

I would like to carry on a rational conversation with 11 7. If you don't want to because you suspect his motive may not be pure enough for you then I suggest you find another thread where you can post something positive.

 

Hopefully Admin.5 simply has not yet seen this .. To knowingly allow such offensive talk to stand is to take part in the offensive.

[Kulapavana 0]

I'm not sure my post was offensive to the guest, but so be it...

 

I have a right to respond to posts directed to me in any way I find appropriate. if the Administrator removes them, well... it's their job.

 

the offensive continues, but from THEIR side, in countries like Poland, Russia and many others. closing your eyes to it is helpful perhaps only to your sense of "tolerance" and "well being".

 

 

Ask yourself a question:

 

Why some devotees snap with hate to the christian presence on this (and others) forum?

 

mostly because they are tired of their self-righteous ways in general, and their coming "to save us" on our own site. tired of church oficials who openly declare tolerance, but secretly sabotage EVERYTHING THEY CAN.

 

ask the Moscow devotees how they feel about being screwed out of their temple.

 

THEN!... and only then, give me grief about my "offensive" posts.

[Guest guest]

 

I think the moderator took a long vacation starting thanksgiving day & will not be back till new year.

 

And while the cat is away...

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

This thread is about a specific subject and is not meant to be a place for people to voice all there complaints about any and all subjects. For one thing 11 7 made no insulting posts. Only questions everyone else has also had arise in their mind rather they are honest enough to admit it or not.

 

Please curb your paranoia.

[Guest guest]

You seem to be the only sane guy around here. Everyone here spends more time playing defense counsel for christians than thinkng about Krishna. Theist is one of them, he is a certified crackpot anyway.

[Guest guest]

My wording was not clear. By offensive I was referring to this unknown guest who is publicly fast tracking his trip to hell and is trying to take others with him.

 

I did not find your post offensive but just misplaced.

[Guest guest]

What the heck happened in this thread? Whre is a moderator when you actually need one? /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm gone for a couple of days, and look what happens. Ha ha.

 

I was thinking, that if you are a guest, but you post regularly, it might be helpful to sign some kind of nick name (or number) so we can respond to you properly. For example like JS das. It helps get all the "guests" straight. Just my humble suggestion.

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest #1 (Thats my name for my friend since you are annonymous),

 

I find your approach to Vaishnavism thought provoking, more then the absolute literal approach d to by iskcon and acb swami. But it raises furth questions in my mind:

 

>>>>"I hold the same opinion even if all of Krishna-lila was born in the mind of a self-realized devotee and never "physically" took place on Earth at all."

 

So what you are saying is, it doesn't really matter if Krishna physically appeared or not. You are saying it is ok to just say "I don't know". But you believe at least that, Krishna presents himself at least to his devotees, in some way they can comprhend, even if it is not in an "archeological" sense as we use it in modern time?

 

But, trying to follow your train of logic, why would God only appear to his devotee "mentally" and not physically? The Indian presupposition of course is that matter is false and brahman is truth, so why would God deal with the matter at all.

Also your approach can lead to a kind of relativism that is not helpful to me. It makes God's relationship to humanity subjective. I mean, in essence, you are saying that God's dealings with people are totally individualistic, and "whats true for you may not be true for someone else". But if everything is true, then nothing is true.

 

Eleven Seven

[Guest guest]

regardless of historical proof through archeilogical and scientific endeavours a devotee with firm faith will except the vedic scriptures as superior knowledge over any other material attempt at understanding history based on sound knowledge passed on through highly qualified and learned personalities.

 

a non-devotee with no faith will need proof through empirical and scientific knowledge which will always be limited as we are percieving the world around us with imperfect senses which cause us to sometimes put faith in something even though it may be an illusion but because the senses say it is real therefore we believe it be so.

 

example,

 

the eyes

 

we once thought the world to be flat because we put faith in what we thought was perfect vision.

 

a mirage in the desert we think is real even though non existent.

 

the ears

 

we hear things and believe them to be something when actually they are something else

 

same goes for the rest of the senses.

 

so the vedic literatures explain krishna did come to earth and perform great events so a devotee will implicitly believe that but not blind faith but through his or her own research into verification of the authenticity of the knowledge being passed down through an unbroken chain of guru disciple relationships dating back to krishna.

 

so we will put someone in the position of authority in terms of knowledge either the spiritual guru or the scientist or some other personality or maybe yourself for that matter.

 

so you decide who is your authority in knowledge that is your decision, thats is the meaning of intelligence.

 

J.S das

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

So what you are saying is, it doesn't really matter if Krishna physically appeared or not. You are saying it is ok to just say "I don't know". But you believe at least that, Krishna presents himself at least to his devotees, in some way they can comprhend, even if it is not in an "archeological" sense as we use it in modern time?

 

 

 

But, trying to follow your train of logic, why would God only appear to his devotee "mentally" and not physically? The Indian presupposition of course is that matter is false and brahman is truth, so why would God deal with the matter at all.

 

 

God can appear anyway He wishes and is free to appear physically if he likes or mentally. All energies are under His control.

 

The fact is all energies are spiritual to Krishna. The example Prabhupada gave is an expert electrician can use electricity to run a heater or a refrigerator according to how he manipulates it. It is the same electrical energy to him.

So when Krishna deals with matter it is spirit to Him. Physical, mental, spiritual are all categories that we labor under.

 

 

 

Also your approach can lead to a kind of relativism that is not helpful to me. It makes God's relationship to humanity subjective. I mean, in essence, you are saying that God's dealings with people are totally individualistic, and "whats true for you may not be true for someone else". But if everything is true, then nothing is true.

 

 

I do believe Krishna's revealing Himself is individualistic. For example it is said that as He walked the earth many could not recoginize Him as the Supreme Lord. Some of His devotees had such intimate rasa with Krishna that such awe and reverance would be a stumbling block to their loving relationship with Krishna.

 

Others saw Him as a possible demigod. Others as a most attractive human. So even the Lord standing before our physical eyes is no guaruntee we will recognoze Him.

 

In a similar way lining up archeological facts to prove Krishna was here will also not be enough to give genuine faith and realization. Maya's duty is always to offer a plausible side by side explanation to challenge that faith.

 

In my person experience I have experienced this. There are statements in the Bhagvatam that I simply cannot reconcile with the 3 dimentional world. For instance it is said that kinf Ugrasena had 6 billion(yes with a b) bodyguards to protect him at Mathura. That is today's population of the entire planet!!! I cannot accept that. But on the other hand the Bhagavatam contains the most astonishing spiritual knowledge I have ever come across with no close second. So do I reject the Bhagvatam because of the 6 billion bodyguards or do I accept it because of the Absolute knowledge it contains? How could there be aby mistakes in the Bhagavatam?

 

These sorts of questions disturbed my mind off and on for several years.

 

Then I realized it doesn't matter about the 6 billion bodyguards literally being on earth or not. The absolute revelations in the Bhagavatam stand on their own and are too valuable for me to lose irregardless of the question of the "literal" or literary nature of what surrounds them.

 

Another angle is that Krishna's presence is what makes something absolute truth or not. Afterall this material world of illusion is literally just a dream anyway. And that goes equally for the external happens we draw in with our material senses or the activities of our mind. So what is the difference if Krishna appears in one or the other or both? it is His appearance that makes the difference between literal truth and illusiorory(sp) experience.

 

So my goal now is to just learn to experience Krishna's presence without consideration of the nature of the surrounding circumstances.

 

I am finding that to do this I must lay aside listening to the accepting/rejecting function of the mind. That function is always trying to calculate should I believe this or not based on it's past experience. This is ultimately useless in God realization I believe.

 

There is a way of emptying the mind that leaves room only for Krishna. I believe that if I could read Krishna-lila from this perspective I could *literally* enter into that pastime of the Lord in present time. IOW's I could play with Krishna as I read of His play with the cowherd boys in the forest etc. irregardless of if there was any archeological evidence or not. It just doesn't matter to me. This works for me so I will continue to move in this direction.

 

I don't debate much over the issue. And when I do I end up sorry I did.

 

I am glad I checked back in to this thread to see if you responded again. I am afraid this will be my last exchange however. level of pure ugliness that is tolerated here is kore than I can handle anymore and I wonder how I ever could. i don't mean arguments over philosophy I mean offensive statements towards great devotees as we see standing in this thread. last night someone posted some very offensive material about Srila Prabhupada.

 

The anonymous guest function needs to be removed. I have posted here a longtime with a sign in name and recently switched because it seems people see my name and it brings out the worst in some. This says a lot about me so I thought to sidestep that negativity but this also doesn't work.

 

I wish you well 11 7. You are the kind of poster I came here to find.

 

Hare Krishna

 

Yesu Bhaktan/Theist/Maitreya/Guest #1

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

JS das writes:

 

"regardless of historical proof through archeilogical and scientific endeavours a devotee with firm faith will except the vedic scriptures as superior knowledge over any other material attempt at understanding history based on sound knowledge passed on through highly qualified and learned personalities....

 

...so the vedic literatures explain krishna did come to earth and perform great events so a devotee will implicitly believe that but not blind faith but through his or her own research into verification of the authenticity of the knowledge being passed down through an unbroken chain of guru disciple relationships dating back to krishna."

 

This is the standard canned iskcon explaination. We are to shut off our minds and have "faith with intelligence" instead of blind faith. Blind faith of course (in iskcon thought) is faith with out reading the books. "Faith with intelligence" means reading the books (ac bs's books) and accepting blindly that there is this "unbroken chain of guru disciple relationships dating back to krishna".

 

Have you reaserached and verified the authenticity of the knowledge of all these people in the so called "parampara", 1. Kr?s?n?a 2. Brahm? 3. N?rada 4. Vy?sa 5. Madhva 6. Padman?bha 7. Nr?hari 8. M?dhava 9. Aks?obhya 10. Jaya T?rtha 11. Jñ?nasindhu 12. Day?nidhi 13. Vidy?nidhi 14. R?jendra 15. Jayadharma 16. Purus?ottama 17. Brahman?ya T?rtha 18. Vy?sa T?rtha 19. Laks?m?pati 20. M?dhavendra Pur? 21. ??vara Pur?, (Nity?nanda, Advaita) 22. Lord Caitanya 23. R?pa, (Svar?pa, San?tana) 24. Raghun?tha, J?va 25. Kr?s?n?ad?sa 26. Narottama 27. Vi?van?tha 28. (Baladeva) Jagann?tha 29. Bhaktivinoda 30. Gauraki?ora 31. Bhaktisiddh?nta Sarasvat? 32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Sv?m? Prabhup?da.?

 

But you seem to be saying archeological proof isn't necessary. You believe all these people were real people don't you? Did they all write things that you can verify? Isn't the so-called "parampara" nothing more than another form of "archeological" and "scientific" evidence and "Historical proof"? You are relaying on presumably historical people to "prove" that Krsna was real. So? How is this knowledge so "sound". Have you even heard of half the people on this list of "dsiciplic seccession"? Did you read their writtings?

 

 

[Guest guest]

They diacritical marks all came out as ? on that last post. Sorry about that....

[Guest guest]

In the Encyclopædia Britannica, you will find:

<blockquote>

Krishna's personality is clearly a syncretic one, though the different elements are not easily separated. Vasudeva-Krsna, a Vrsni prince who was presumably also a religious leader, was elevated to the godhead by the 5th century BC; the cowherd Krishna is obviously the god of a pastoral community that turned away from the Indra-dominated Vedic religion. The Krishna who emerged from the blending of these ideologies was ultimately identified with the supreme god Visnu-Narayana and, hence, considered his avatar. His cult preserved distinctive traits, chief among them an exploration of the analogies between divine love and human love. Thus, Krishna's youthful dalliances with the gopis are interpreted as symbolic of the loving interplay between God and the human soul.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9046250

</blockquote>

 

 

So, we can at least accept from this that the Encyclopædia Britannica acknowledges that people were worshipping Krishna prior to the 5th century BC

 

But there is also this statement in Chhandogya Upanishad, chapter Chapter XVI

<blockquote>

6 Ghora, of the line of Angirasa, said to Krishna, the son of Devaki: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: ‘Thou art indestructible (akshata),’ ‘Thou art unchanging (aprachyuta),’ and ‘Thou art the subtle prana.’

"On this subject there are two Rik—verses:

 

7 "They (i.e. the knowers of Brahman) see everywhere the Supreme Light, which shines in Brahman, which is all—pervading like the light of day and which belongs to the primeval Seed.

‘Perceiving the higher light in the sun—which is above the darkness of ignorance—as the higher light in the heart, perceiving the Supreme Light which is higher than all lights, we have reached the Highest Light, the Sun, the most luminous among the gods, yea, we have reached the Highest Light, the Sun, the most luminous among the gods.""

 

</blockquote>

 

Here, we see that Krishna is stated to be the Supreme Brahman, the supreme being described in the Rg Veda. He says to Krishna "You are acyutya, you are prana (the source of life)".

 

And it is a known fact recroded in Buddhist Scriptures that Sakhyamuni Buddha studied Chhandogya and other ancient scriptures, and moreover that Buddha rejected the notion that "God exists". The God he was rejecting was Bhagavan (Narayana, Vishnu).

 

From this we can see that there is compelling evidence that Vaishnavism is an older religion than Buddhism.

 

In Encyclopædia Britannica there is a discussion about whether or not the Mahabharata war took place, and the scholars agree that this event was most probably a real event, and moreover that the person Krishna (who is mentioned as the son of Devaki in Chandogya Upanishad) was a participant at the Mahabharata battle at Kurukshetra. Indeed, if we read the full section of Chandogya Upanishad we see this is presenting the same Karma-yoga philosophy that Krishna presents in the gita. So from this, the scholars of Encyclopædia Britannica conclude, it is most likely that the "Karma Yoga" philosophy arose through the preaching of Krishna, at the time of the Kurukshetra battle.

 

The "karma yoga" philosophy had to originate some place, and from some person. So scholars are sympathetic to the idea that this somebody was Krishna.

 

Can we prove that Krishna exists? Well, if you choose to believe in Krishna and what he says in the Gita then you your future looks bright. But if you choose to reject Krishna - then your future, I cannot predict.

 

- Muralidhar

[Guest guest]

In regard to the Guru Parampara list you published...

 

the essential fact of this list is that our Parampara goes back to Sri Chaitanya. Our whole religion is built upon the teachings of Sri Chaitanya. Krishna is there at the start of the list, but the Gaudiya Vaishnavas are primarily devotees of Rupa, Sanatana, and Sri Chaitanya.

 

And there is no doubt whether Sri Chaitanya is a "REAL PERSON" - certainly you must agree that he appeared on earth !

 

If you believe in reincarnation, as I do, then the person who appeared 500 years agao, Sri Chaitanya, is alive today, someplace.

 

Krishna, we can say, is alive: Sri Krishna Chaitanya

 

-- Muralidhar

 

[Guest guest]

 

To clarify,

 

 

But there is also this statement in Chhandogya Upanishad, chapter Chapter XVI

 

 

6 Ghora, of the line of Angirasa, said to Krishna, the son of Devaki: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: ‘Thou art indestructible (akshata),’ ‘Thou art unchanging (aprachyuta),’ and ‘Thou art the subtle prana.’

"On this subject there are two Rik—verses:

 

7 "They (i.e. the knowers of Brahman) see everywhere the Supreme Light, which shines in Brahman, which is all—pervading like the light of day and which belongs to the primeval Seed.

‘Perceiving the higher light in the sun—which is above the darkness of ignorance—as the higher light in the heart, perceiving the Supreme Light which is higher than all lights, we have reached the Highest Light, the Sun, the most luminous among the gods, yea, we have reached the Highest Light, the Sun, the most luminous among the gods.""

 

 

The traditional schools of Advaita, dvaita, etc., do not interpret the Krishna of the Chandogya as THE Krishna.

 

All the interpretations I know, have this Krishna (of the Chandogya) being instructed in the greatness of Brahman bu Ghora Angirasa. I am not aware of any interpretation where the Chandogya refers to this Krishna as Brahman.

 

Finally, Krishna & Rama are not found in canonical Veda anywhere. Their identities emerge from itihasa & purana. I have heard of references of a dark Krishna in some part of the Rig veda where he is an enemy of the formidable Indra and a cow stealer. He is eventually killed by Indra. But this information is not authenticated.

 

The missing link is the time when the popular Rig Veda Gods like Indra, Agni, etc., became less significant and gave way to Vishnu and then eventually to Shiva, Krishna, Rama and the mother Goddess (in various forms). For example., a number of South Indian Iyers (Smartha Brahmins) are totally into Devi worship, which is non-Vedic. The other Brhamins in India are either Shiva worhsippers or Vaishnavas.

 

It is not known when they switched over from Agni & Vaayu and why.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

i never said archeological evidence wasn't necessary but you interpret it that way.

 

i said basically based on an individual's own intelligence you will chose an authority, material or spiritual or both.

 

If material science will help in your endeavours to understand the truth then by all means study and research, as the biggest scientific question would be were did we come from, my point before is that you will never be able to fully understand everything that has transpired in the past through material science because of the nature of deteroration of the material elements so relying on material science as absolute will be flawed. Also another point how can you prove what was spoken thousands of years ago through science, it is not possible because it cannot be tested, sound instantly vanish's into to the ether, therefore books are written and passsed down through generations and ancestors as knowledge, scientifically you can prove this \was the process in ages gone by.

 

So research scientifically or archeologically and if you come to the conclusion there must be or is a su[preme intelligent creator then find out who that person is ,if not then live your with conviction there is no supreme, iskcon is not for everyone simply because not everyone will except it.

 

Iskcon will give you the same old drum because they are convinced that it is absolute truth, do you think devotees are ignorant of scientific research, no there not, they just chose there authority as krishna because they believe there is no better explanaition of existence, history and creation.

 

Like i said you decide who is your authority!!!!!!

 

J.S das

[Guest guest]

The historical Krishna, no doubt, existed. We meet the name first in the Chhandogya Upanishad where all we can gather about him is that he was well-known in spiritual tradition as a knower of the Brahman, so well-known indeed in his personality and the circumstances of his life that it was sufficient to refer to him by the name of his mother as Krishna son of Devaki for all to understand who was meant. In the same Upanishad we find mention of King Dhritarashtra son of Vichitravirya, and since tradition associated the two together so closely that they are both of them leading personages in the action of the Mahabharata, we may fairly conclude that they were actually contemporaries and that the epic is to a great extent dealing with historical characters and in the war of Kurukshetra with a historical occurrence imprinted firmly on the memory of the race.

 

- Sri Aurobindo Ghosh

 

(from murali)