We have upgraded Pariprashnena! Login is done with email OR username + usual password now.
Any problem or doubt please email pariprashnena@gmail.com
Is Christianity compatible with Gaudiya Vaisnavism
-
Although there are strong points of similarity with Vaisnavism, Christianity shows up some irreconcilable differences.
The three most prominent are
1)the lack of vegetarism.
2)the understanding that Jesus isn't just a human being but God Himself.
3) the doctrine that one is saved by faith alone, which is not simply mundane belief but a supernatural virtue.
It is interesting to hear ISKCON members blaspheme Christians, when Christians pay little attention to ISKCON members, who they don't even consider to have any signficant effect on the Western culture.
How does Gaudiya Vaisnavism understand itself, therefore to be non-secatarian? -
...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.
-
When Prabhupada was visiting Franciscan monastery on his 1975 visit to Australia - one of the Fathers there have put a question to him. He asked, what has he thought of the God consciousness of St Francis who would call animals and even death itself, his brothers and sisters. Prabhupada opened his eyes wide and he said: "this is real God consciousness".
Of course when Franciscans or other Catholic is vegetarian- it is not the sufficient reason to be 'compatible' with Krishna consciousness, after all there are fundamentalists in both traditions. but the good news are - Prabhupada was not one of them.
Probably most incompatible with Krishna Consciousness is tantric or monistic Hinduism e.g. left hand/occult practices or Mayavadism. -
...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.hariharibol:
That's the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.
He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15 -
Christianity (or Judaism for some devotees) is compatible with only the initial stages of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Eventually it becomes a complete rasa-bhasa and one is forced to make a clear choice. That is my practical observation as well as doctrinal conclusion.
-
[quote]cbrahma:
...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.hariharibol:
That's the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.
He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15[/quote]
Where does it explicitly say that Jesus ate meat? Those verses, for the sake of condemning hypocrisy, seem to be denying the need to eat with washed hands, compared with the need to have a clean heart. It's been used many times by Christians to support their desire for eating the bodies of slaughtered animals, but that's not what Jesus was talking about, was it? Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts. -
cbrahma:That's the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.
Pandu:Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.
Many Christians are Vegies. The way early Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism
But the question of rasa remain. There is however notion of bridal mysticism in some Christian orders, but are we so much incompatible with Sri and Vallabha sampradayas, just because they express preference to a different rasa, are we incompatible with Nityanandavamsa, just because of sakhya-rasa prevalence, they are not apasampradayas. But back to the dividing aspect:
Satyaraja in his book, Food for the Spirit, write and gives a bit more background info:
The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured.
Sure the scriptures were edited at the time to remove references to vegie Christians. -
[quote]Pandu das:
[quote]cbrahma:
...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.hariharibol:
That's the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.
He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15[/quote]
Where does it explicitly say that Jesus ate meat? Those verses, for the sake of condemning hypocrisy, seem to be denying the need to eat with washed hands, compared with the need to have a clean heart. It's been used many times by Christians to support their desire for eating the bodies of slaughtered animals, but that's not what Jesus was talking about, was it? Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.[/quote]
The verses distinquish between rules meant for the body and rules meant for the spirit. Food is for the body and cannot defile the spirit. - This makes perfect sense to me.
Let's not forget that Jesus was a Jew . He celebrated the Sadir meal at Passover
The climax of the Seder meal should be the festive meal of roast lamb. However, since the Temple no longer stands in Jerusalem (where the Passover lamb was sacrificed), a shankbone is presented as a reminder of the Passover Lamb.
Also he chose his disciples from Palestinian fisherman. The Gospel tells how he ate with them (that would be fish). At no point in his ministry does Jesus preach against eating meat, ignoring the dietary restrictions because he ate with Gentiles. -
cbrahma:That's the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.ccd:
Pandu:Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.
Many Christians are Vegies. The way early Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism
But the question of rasa remain. There is however notion of bridal mysticism in some Christian orders, but are we so much incompatible with Sri and Vallabha sampradayas, just because they express preference to a different rasa, are we incompatible with Nityanandavamsa, just because of sakhya-rasa prevalence, they are not apasampradayas. But back to the dividing aspect:
Satyaraja in his book, Food for the Spirit, write and gives a bit more background info:
The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured.
Sure the scriptures were edited at the time to remove references to vegie Christians.
BTW John the Baptist, though Essene, we are told ate locusts and honey.
I don't know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.
They regarded some animals as 'unclean' but not all.
The law on clean and unclean animals in the Pentateuch divides all animals into two groups: clean which can be eaten, and unclean which are not to be eaten. -
cbrahma:
I don't know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian...
they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.
Majority of gaudiyas (specifically the guys living in Bengal) do not comply with the Iskcon standards of cleanliness. They do not follow the principles such as no illicit sex in marriage. Majority of brahmacaris and sanniyasis who one time or another took on saffron, do not do it anymore and do not even try to keep semen. It can degrade even further, just as Christianity did. But the fact is that Jews, Christians and even Muslims are good Christians, Jews and Muslims if they are vegetarian, all following their rules. I agree that they are not compatible to eat together, that is true, but nothing in the doctrine is contradicting the basics of sambhandha jnana. But hey we are not compatible with majority of Buddhists and Saivaites as well. Did you ever go to Swaminarayana mandir, they worship Radha Krishna there, but we are not really 'compatible' with them. -
Some time ago I wrote this comment on vegetarianism in Abrahamic traditions:
To argue with Christians, Jews or Muslims regarding meat eating usually leads to a stalemate since their view is quite different from a Vaishnava view. They will claim the Bible is full of meat eating, animal sacrifices, etc. which is true. But let's take a closer look.
Quotes about meat eating are present already in Genesis 9 as an intentionally complex and restricted concession for Noah. They are the basis of Jewish 'kosher' (analogous to Muslim 'halal') rules about how to prepare meat and how to mix it with another dairy foods. However,
it is practically impossible to drain all blood from the flesh. Ultimately, this whole troublesome procedure for eating meat is meant to persuade one to adopt a vegetarian diet, the only 100% kosher diet.
"In previous times, abstaining from meat was associated with asceticism and fasting. One will never find any references to any word akin to 'vegetarian' in ancient sources. It is a modern concept and term. Rules of orders like St. Benedict's, the Nazareans/Nazarite vows, etc. prescribe avoiding flesh. To be an ascetic in the Mediterranean region meant no flesh eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex and no gaming/gambling." (Bhakti Ananda Goswami)
The basic difference is between pravritti and nivritti marga approaches. Nivritti marga in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is practically found only in Christian monastic orders. Some of their
founders prescribed no-flesh or minimum-flesh diet but in recent times these rules tend to be abandoned like in case of Cistercians and possibly others.
St. Paul says that which comes into a mouth doesn't pollute and one can either eat meat or not but that it is completely irrelevant to one's holiness. He commented on eating meat offered to idols (from a Vedic point of view an unauthorized deva worship) and concluded that it's better not to eat it in order to avoid damaging others's faith (1 Corinthians 8). We can agree that pollution by meat is not as serious as a wicked nature which manifests both by words coming from a mouth and actions. Time, place and circumstances of Biblical context must be considered though.
Another obstacle for Christians is that meat abstention was also supported by various heretic sects (mainly mayavadi Gnostics) and this may predetermine their view of Vaishnavas.
An efficient way to present this issue is an appeal to mercy - "Do for my food, clothes and entertainment have to suffer and die other living beings?" Violence doesn't seem to fit Jesus as a Good Shepherd preaching love and mercy.
"...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)
More: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/change.htm#2
Wine used in Christian tradition originally had a low-alcohol content and was often mixed with water for offering. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol
'Constantine pouring molten lead to vegetarians's mouths' is a myth. Punishment by pouring liquid lead is mentioned in the law of Constantine, but not related to vegetarians.
Recent article on vegetarianism in Islam:
http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160 -
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/jvpassover.html
PASSOVER AND VEGETARIANISM
by Richard H. Schwartz
http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html
Jesus and the early Christians
Was Christ a Vegetarian?
by Ted Altar
http://www.europeanvegetarian.org/evu/english/news/news972/celebrations.html
1847-1997 Vegetariansm - A Cause for Celebration - religious origins of the Vegetarian Society UK
Ethics, Christianity and Vegetarianism (European Congress 1997)
http://www.ivu.org/congress/euro97/ethics.html
Religion & Vegetarianism / Are Christians Vegetarians?
http://www.ivu.org/news/95-96/religion.html -
[quote]ccd:cbrahma:
I don't know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian...
they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.
Majority of gaudiyas (specifically the guys living in Bengal) do not comply with the Iskcon standards of cleanliness. They do not follow the principles such as no illicit sex in marriage. Majority of brahmacaris and sanniyasis who one time or another took on saffron, do not do it anymore and do not even try to keep semen. It can degrade even further, just as Christianity did. But the fact is that Jews, Christians and even Muslims are good Christians, Jews and Muslims if they are vegetarian, all following their rules. I agree that they are not compatible to eat together, that is true, but nothing in the doctrine is contradicting the basics of sambhandha jnana. But hey we are not compatible with majority of Buddhists and Saivaites as well. Did you ever go to Swaminarayana mandir, they worship Radha Krishna there, but we are not really 'compatible' with them.[/quote]
This is all an excercise in 'begging the question', that is, presuming first what is to be proven. Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas and then that they would therefore understand that one of the 'rules' as you put it is to be vegetarian, you're conclusion has no merit. Also, simply because some Christians choose to be vegetarian does not mean that it is a mandate of Christian doctrine.
None of the teaching traditions of the Christian church, which for centuries was the Roman Catholic Church, mention diet, except for fasting from red meat on Fridays. The Protestants likewise , even those that avoid alchohol and gambling, make no rule regarding vegetarian diet.
I will repeat, though possibly to no effect, Jesus' teaching on the subject is conspicuous by its absence. Jesus knew about the animal sacrifices that were going on in the temple and did not comment. The theological tradition BTW is that animals don't have souls. -
Some time ago I wrote this comment on vegetarianism in Abrahamic traditions:VEDA:
To argue with Christians, Jews or Muslims regarding meat eating usually leads to a stalemate since their view is quite different from a Vaishnava view. They will claim the Bible is full of meat eating, animal sacrifices, etc. which is true. But let's take a closer look.
Quotes about meat eating are present already in Genesis 9 as an intentionally complex and restricted concession for Noah. They are the basis of Jewish 'kosher' (analogous to Muslim 'halal') rules about how to prepare meat and how to mix it with another dairy foods. However,
it is practically impossible to drain all blood from the flesh. Ultimately, this whole troublesome procedure for eating meat is meant to persuade one to adopt a vegetarian diet, the only 100% kosher diet.
"In previous times, abstaining from meat was associated with asceticism and fasting. One will never find any references to any word akin to 'vegetarian' in ancient sources. It is a modern concept and term. Rules of orders like St. Benedict's, the Nazareans/Nazarite vows, etc. prescribe avoiding flesh. To be an ascetic in the Mediterranean region meant no flesh eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex and no gaming/gambling." (Bhakti Ananda Goswami)
The basic difference is between pravritti and nivritti marga approaches. Nivritti marga in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is practically found only in Christian monastic orders. Some of their
founders prescribed no-flesh or minimum-flesh diet but in recent times these rules tend to be abandoned like in case of Cistercians and possibly others.
St. Paul says that which comes into a mouth doesn't pollute and one can either eat meat or not but that it is completely irrelevant to one's holiness. He commented on eating meat offered to idols (from a Vedic point of view an unauthorized deva worship) and concluded that it's better not to eat it in order to avoid damaging others's faith (1 Corinthians 8). We can agree that pollution by meat is not as serious as a wicked nature which manifests both by words coming from a mouth and actions. Time, place and circumstances of Biblical context must be considered though.
Another obstacle for Christians is that meat abstention was also supported by various heretic sects (mainly mayavadi Gnostics) and this may predetermine their view of Vaishnavas.
An efficient way to present this issue is an appeal to mercy - "Do for my food, clothes and entertainment have to suffer and die other living beings?" Violence doesn't seem to fit Jesus as a Good Shepherd preaching love and mercy.
"...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)
More: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/change.htm#2
Wine used in Christian tradition originally had a low-alcohol content and was often mixed with water for offering. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol
'Constantine pouring molten lead to vegetarians's mouths' is a myth. Punishment by pouring liquid lead is mentioned in the law of Constantine, but not related to vegetarians.
Recent article on vegetarianism in Islam:
http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160
Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people. I don't believe that one's diet is cause to think one's self above others who do not. In fact any renunciate practice does not give cause to take a superior attitude. Renunciates can be just as arrogant and un-loving as those who are not. It is merely external and the history of supposed renunciates of the kind we have seen in ISKCON bears that out. -
I never assume that they are. In fact I would not assume it for anyone before seeing actual vaishnava qualities. Belonging to a tradition or a sect does not make one a Vashnava. What to speak of belonging to such a religion as 'Christianity' where anything goes these days.
Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas.cbrahma: -
I never assume that they are. In fact I would not assume it for anyone before seeing actual vaishnava qualities. Belonging to a tradition or a sect does not make one a Vashnava. What to speak of belonging to such a religion as 'Christianity' where anything goes these days.[/quote]
[quote]ccd:
Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas.cbrahma:
Now I am in agreement. That would of course, include ISKCON. -
> Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people.
Only for those who want to understand God as per the SP quote in my linked article.
> I don't believe that one's diet is cause to think one's self above others who do not.
Neither is this suggested anywhere. At the same time Krishna defines sattvic diet as superior to rajasic and tamasic. -
> Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people.VEDA:
Only for those who want to understand God as per the SP quote in my linked article.
> I don't believe that one's diet is cause to think one's self above others who do not.
Neither is this suggested anywhere. At the same time Krishna defines sattvic diet as superior to rajasic and tamasic.
Superior? In what way? Materially? Sattva-guna is as the name implies a 'guna' which means 'rope'. It is material. -
See BG 17.8-
-
See BG 17.8-VEDA:
Your point being? -
I am not as learned as some of you...
But it seems to me that Jesus and Krishna really had the same message...REMEMBER ME IN WHAT YOU THINK AND IN WHAT YOU DO....i mean from just a common sense standpoint, if you remember Krishna or Jesus and the example set forth by them, and apply said example to your life, can you go wrong?
I know Krishna would not steal and Jesus would not kill neither would I...it's common sense...i know those things are wrong in my mind as well as in my heart.
Do Christianity and Krishna-ism really have to be compatible with each other anyways? Isn't that why we have different flavors of ice cream? Krishna works for me Jesus works for you. O.K. great!
I don't think any one person can say that there is only one truth. (as so many fanatics from so many faiths love to do)
Perhaps one day we will all have the answers and a good laugh over a pint in that great pub in the sky.
Until then we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth by debating over stuff that really does not matter anyway.
I love you whoever you are!
Hare Krishna!
YOGASVAR -
I am not as learned as some of you...yogasvar:
But it seems to me that Jesus and Krishna really had the same message...REMEMBER ME IN WHAT YOU THINK AND IN WHAT YOU DO....i mean from just a common sense standpoint, if you remember Krishna or Jesus and the example set forth by them, and apply said example to your life, can you go wrong?
Remember who? Krishna, or Jesus? Kali, Indra, or Siva? Pandu or Yogasvar? Are you saying we should remember an impersonal self? [br /][br /]
Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 8.5, "And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt." [br /][br /]
"...remembering Me alone,..." means remembering Krishna, not someone else. When did Jesus ever say, "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."? If he did, it didn't make it into the Bible. I can't find Krishna's name anywhere in the Bible. [br /][br /]I know Krishna would not steal and Jesus would not kill neither would I...it's common sense...i know those things are wrong in my mind as well as in my heart.
Do Christianity and Krishna-ism really have to be compatible with each other anyways? Isn't that why we have different flavors of ice cream? Krishna works for me Jesus works for you. O.K. great!
Have you talked to any devout Christians lately? If so, do they think Krishna consciousness is just a different flavor of religion? Why don't we stock the books of all kinds of religoins and distribute whatever people prefer? That would be easy.[br /][br /]I don't think any one person can say that there is only one truth. (as so many fanatics from so many faiths love to do)
Well, sure. I'm a man. (The body is typing.) I'm a spirit soul. (That's the self in the body, my real identity.) Both are true. However, the question is which truth is superior. This body will disintegrate in due course of time and thereby become untrue; but I will always be a spirit soul. Two true statements, but one transcends and is superior. Similarly, God has many names, forms, etc., but we are primarily concerned with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Is that Jesus or Krishna?
[br /][br /]Perhaps one day we will all have the answers and a good laugh over a pint in that great pub in the sky.
Sounds like heaven. I'm hoping to skip heaven and find my place at Krishna's lotus feet. I'm not sure you'll find many Christians in heaven either.
[br /][br /]Until then we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth by debating over stuff that really does not matter anyway.
Christians kill millions of cows every year, and billions of other animals, because their religion says "God gave us animals to eat." Does that not matter? They say Jesus is the only way to salvation. The dismiss the Bhagavad-gita and all the Vedic literatures, saying the Bible is the only true word of God. Does the fourth offense against the Holy Name of the Lord not matter? It seems to me that "we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth" with the "I'm OK; you're OK" approach to deviant religions.
[br /][br /]I love you whoever you are!
Hare Krishna
YOGASVAR
Hare Krishna. -
I agree. The essence - bhagavad bhakti - is the same, the presentation somehow differs as per time, place and circumstances. This is true for all theistic traditions.
-
Pandu,
you miss my point...i will not try to clarify because it was pretty simple the first time...i was not talking about christians or hindus or any other group...I was talking about Krishna and Jesus...
Anyway prabu, you might be right....but you may be wrong...
Hare Krishna!
Yogasvar -
I guess one of the problems is that Jesus wasn't a Christian, and really we don't know much at all about what Jesus actually said or did. I can't help but question the this supposed inerrancy of the Bible. Does YHWH mean VISNU?
Apparently Jesus worshiped a God called Yahweh, or Jehovah, or something like that. The Bible doesn't even tell us. I've never heard of such a name in the Vedic literatures, nor does the name of Krsna or Visnu appear in the Bible. If someone says Ganapati is God or Kali is God, is it bhakti? No. It is demigod worship. I don't know who the God of the Bible is, but if that is really God, then why do the Vedas not give any such indication. Or if they do, what is it?
I was born in a Catholic family, and when my brother got married, I took Communion in the church wearing tilak and sikha. I didn't think I needed to go to confession before it because I was always chanting Krishna's names. Later I was told people there were offended. If I want to go in a church most anywhere and worship Krishna, what are the chances it will be appreciated by the Christians there? I think it would be unlikely. Similarly, if a Christian brought a Bible to the Hare Krishna temple and started insisting on its authority and quoting Jesus saying He's the only way, how would we appreciate it?
Even in a secular environment, there's an example that comes to mind. It's not Jesus, but it's arguable whether modern Christians are followers of Jesus at all. I've made our land into somewhat of a farm animal sanctuary with a small herd consisting of a cow, three sheep, three goats, and a variety of other smaller animals. In the office where I work, there are several devout Christians, and every one of them would be happy to eat any of these animals I mentioned. Most Christians I know would like me better if I would kill my animals and shut up about being a vegetarian. If there is some calamity and food becomes a little scarce, we'll have to watch out that these animals don't get stolen by Christians and eaten. Also, I cannot go to any of our office parties or even the annual banquet because what to speak of prasadam cooked by brahmana devotees, almost everything is meat. Not a day goes by at work when I do not get assaulted by the ghastly smell of death at lunchtime, stories of hunting exploits or glorification of the tastes of meat dishes, mostly by Christians. It's usually pretty horrible to be around Christians at mealtime. Turn them into vegetarians, give them prasad, and get them to chant Hare Krishna.
Or... get them to chant Hare Krishna, give them prasad, and turn them into vegetarians.
Hare Krishna -
Pandu, you can refer them to the above links about vegetarianism in Christianity.
Jesus was a Vaishnava-related monotheist as seen from tilaka marks on early icons and the Turin Shroud (listed among Vignon markings):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sphysical.html
http://xoomer.alice.it/bachm/MANTON94.PDF -
Pandu das:
Apparently Jesus worshiped a God called Yahweh, or Jehovah, or something like that. The Bible doesn't even tell us. I've never heard of such a name in the Vedic literatures, nor does the name of Krsna or Visnu appear in the Bible. If someone says Ganapati is God or Kali is God, is it bhakti? No. It is demigod worship. I don't know who the God of the Bible is, but if that is really God, then why do the Vedas not give any such indication. Or if they do, what is it?
Well I guess we should accept that he worshiped the supreme god, not local demi-gods.
so anugrahaya bhaktanam anurupatma-darsanam - He manifests His innumerable transcendental forms for the satisfaction of His devotees.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliodorus_(minister) - some devotees suggested that the two boys met by Heliodorus were forms of Krishna and Balarama and this is the first step of his conversion to Vasnavism. which apparently happened later.
I myself yet to see a conclusive sastic proof that the god of Hebrews is the supreme God of Purusa Sukta of RgVeda.
However it seems that according to all, unlike his relatives, Jews, Jesus did worship the original Personality of Godhead.
However I should trust Prabhupada on this:
It is not a fact that the Lord appears only on Indian soil. He can manifest Himself anywhere and everywhere, and whenever He desires to appear. In each and every incarnation, He speaks as much about religion as can be understood by the particular people under their particular circumstances. But the mission is the same-to lead people to God consciousness and obedience to the principles of religion. Sometimes He descends personally, and sometimes He sends His bona fide representative in the form of His son, or servant, or Himself in some disguised form. B'g 4.7 purp. -
1) There is evidence of Vegetarianism in branches of Christianity even to this day.
2) Christ never said he was god.
3) Christ himself said: Now I have cured you of your sins go forth and sin no more (follow some principles)
Srila Prabhupada accepted Christ as the Guru of the Christians (There are written references to this in his conversations)
The point where Christianity lost it for me before I came to Iskcon was the final relationship offered bewteen God and the follower of Jesus it was similar to the relationship between a King and his subject, very removed and it had no depth and no ras (sweetness). Its like when the Queen waves from her Automobile at her subjects as she passes.
The final relationship offered bewteen Krishna and the Jiva by Chaintainya Mahaprabhu and the disciplic succession that has followed him is deeper and sweeter than any other known religious or spiritual process.
However I would never take it upon myself to blaspheme any other religion. I always thought Vaisnavas were supposed to be humble and full of compassion for the fallen conditioned soul. (I cant see how blaspheming others fits into Vaisnava conduct) -
I think that many people "have a problem with Christianity" and "blaspheme it" because of some particular set of values and principles that Christianity brings up, especially the Christianity as it is popularly preached/practised. This "having a problem with Christianity" is a bit of a hasty generalization, because there are also other religions and philosophies that bring up those same or similar values and principles.
But (popular) Christianity is probably the one with that set of values and principles that many people find unacceptable.
I will not go into whether the following values and principles were originally taught by Jesus, because there is so much dispute over what Jesus really taught, what the constitutional teachings of the Bible and of Christianity are, and other text-critical issues.
Popularly, these are some of the values and principles that Christianity usually stands for:
1. A god who throws some his children into hell for eternity and tortures them for all eternity, with no chance of redemption, is a just and loving god.
2. We are inherently flawed therefore we sin; god made us so, yet it is our fault, we have to take responsibility for it as if we chose to be faulty,and we need to be forgiven for this fault.
3. We have to choose the right religion in this life time; we have only this one chance. If we don't chose the right religion and do what is necessary, we go to hell for all eternity, with no chance of redemption.
4. God is not in the business of making people happy; if we want to be happy, we have to see to it ourselves (such as by sex, food, ...).
In my experience, it is these above that many people find unacceptable. And they will criticize such values and principles, point out inconsistencies, contradictions, or blatant immorality.
Some people consider such criticism to be blasphemy.
Many Christians consider it blasphemy to criticize the notion of a loving god casting souls into hell for all eternity.
Many Christians consider it blasphemy to criticize the notion of there being only one life time in which we have to choose the right religion, or burn in hell for all eternity.
Some Christians are deeply offended if one asks them "How do you know you are not just imagining god; how do you know god is really there?" -
However I would never take it upon myself to blaspheme any other religion. I always thought Vaisnavas were supposed to be humble and full of compassion for the fallen conditioned soul. (I cant see how blaspheming others fits into Vaisnava conduct)manasi_seva:
Different people have different criteria for what constitutes blasphemy.
For example: I used to be related to Christianity/Christians. When my then friends, Christians, found out I was reading the Bhagavad-gita, some said that that book was a blasphemy of the Lord. -
Most probably I've posted this here before but the 'eternal hell' seems to be most probably a textual misinterpretation:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm#4 -
abrahmin->BTW John the Baptist, though Essene, we are told ate locusts and honey
Apparently the locust referred to here is some kind of carob foodstuff and not an insect according to Satyaraja prabhu. -
[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Most probably I've posted this here before but the 'eternal hell' seems to be most probably a textual misinterpretation:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm#4[/quote]
Generally, Christianity stands with the doctrine of eternal hell, and falls without it.
If there is no eternally relevant negative consequence for not following the instructions of the Bible/Jesus/Christians, then why bother following them at all?
For many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, the purpose of following the instructions of the Bible/Jesus/Christians is simply to avoid God's wrath. Not to have a better life, to become perfected spiritually, to live in happy unison with God or something like that.
Apart from the threat of eternal hell and the admonition to act in a manner so as to avoid it, I don't see anything that Christianity offers, that would not also be offered by secular humanism, Spiritual Universalism, common sense, New Age ... Whereby these tend to offer it at a much lesser price than Christianity (price in terms of money, in terms of humiliation, in terms of how much imagination one has to muster to follow a spiritual principle or path, in terms of breaking up ties with one's family and friends). -
So you say that non-eternal punishment is no punishment at all? I fail to see any logic in this.
To follow God to avoid His wrath is really the lowest motivation level, imho. But it may well be the major motivation. I haven't seen any stats.
Most of Western post-Enlightenment ideologies build on Christian values (although without God or with a limited God) without admitting it. -
The doctrine of eternal hell concludes that non-eternal punishment is no punishment at all.
I suppose such a conclusion is inevitable if we operate out of a conception of only one life time for action, with no karma and no reincarnation. And/or if we operate out of a conception that God is evil or whimsical, or if we are not sure about God's true nature. -
Not really. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory can be traced to the early Christianity. It provides temporary punishment for lesser sins.
Karma is found in the Bible (see krima, krino). Reincarnation is not explicit yet some texts seem to allude to it, thru pre-existence. It may be surprising but Catholic Church doesn't officially ban reincarnation as a private view and a significant percentage of Catholics allegedly accepts it. (That's not the case of Protestant Churches prevalent in America though.)
Evil God is a Gnostic concept (demiurge), analogical to creator Brahma.
Vagueness of God's nature is one of the significant lacks in Christianity.
More elaboration on these topics with refs is found on our website. -
As for the notion of an evil God:
I don't see how the problem of evil can be explained without karma and reincarnation.
Without karma and reincarnation, how is a theist to explain the existence of evil, while still maintaining that God is omnibenevolent? Seeing all the evil in this world, all the suffering, being affected by it, while having no notion of karma and reincarnation, one easily concludes that God must be evil to allow this. Or at least that God is benevolent, but weak.
That said, I am not so interested in the official Christian doctrines/arguments/teachings, but in the individual statements and arguments that are popularly known, whether they are in line with the official Christianity or not. This is because I think an actual person has contact with the actual practice of theism, with actual statements and arguments made by actual people - and in one's own practice, it is these that need to be addressed. Because it is these that may be wreaking havoc in one's mind, not necessarily the official doctrines etc..
So the OP question can be answered in two ways - one is the scholarly way, dealing with the official doctrines, the other is the practical one, as it pertains to the actual experience of individual people. -
> Without karma and reincarnation, how is a theist to explain the existence of evil, while still maintaining that God is omnibenevolent?
Theists (Abrahamic) usually resort to statements like 'God's purpose is hidden to us', or 'mysterious are ways of God' which are not satisfactory to many people. Therefore the Argument from Evil is still one of the prominent atheistic arguments in current debates (see YT).
Already for some time I'm collecting these arguments 'from real persons' to refute them from the pov of Vaishnava Vedanta. -
ksibeva madhv-asava-tamra-locanah
Thus bewildered, such less intelligent persons become angry at the Supreme Lord, and due to their angry mood the Lord Himself appears angry and very fearful. SB 5.17.20 -
> Theists (Abrahamic) usually resort to statements like 'God's purpose is hidden to us', or 'mysterious are ways of God' which are not satisfactory to many people. Therefore the Argument from Evil is still one of the prominent atheistic arguments in current debates (see YT).
I presume "YT" means YouTube?
> Already for some time I'm collecting these arguments 'from real persons' to refute them from the pov of Vaishnava Vedanta.
Are they already available online? I would really appreciate the refutation of such arguments, I think they would help me. -
Yes.
Not yet. -
Here's something about the Stone paradox. Comments welcome.
--
Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift? (Paradox of the stone)
This old paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox tries to refute the omnipotence of God but it rests on a premise of (1) static and (2) successive action (first stone, then its lifting) by (3) God Himself. This idea is based on anthropomorphism (attributing human nature to God) due to the lack of the knowledge of God's real nature in Abrahamic traditions. Here is a Vedic approach.
Omnipotence (Lat. omnis - all, potentia - energy) refers to the possession of all (sarva) energies (saktis). God is therefore known as the possessor of all saktis, sarva-saktiman (see Bhagavad Gita 7.4-6, Vedanta sutra 2.1.30, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan#Definitions).
The nature of God is inexhaustible (avyayam, Bhagavad Gita refs: 4.6, 7.13,25, 9.13,18, 11.4,18, 13.32, 15.5,17). This is reflected in His assuming various vyuhas (Bhagavata Purana 5.17.14, 11.6.10, 10.13.21-27, 12.11.21,27-28,50) and avataras (BhP 6.9.26-27) whose number is endless. (asankhyeya, BhP 1.3.26) God is called avatari, the source of avataras who are compared to candles (Brahmasamhita 5.46). Despite God is still One (bhurisah tu ekah, BhP 2.4.9).
His saktis due to working under His control (BG 9.10, BhP 4.17.33, 10.1.25) are also dynamic, always expanding (virya-upabrmhanaya, BhP 5.20.40, vitatya mayam, BhP 10.14.19, vistarayan kridasi yoga-mayam, BhP 10.14.21, mayam tatana, BhP 10.45.1). He acts through them. (ad 3)
In the dynamic (ad 1,2) 'God-saktis' system one can't pinpoint a specific time when God would create such a stone and then (try to) lift it. This situation is similar to quantum physics's uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle -
I quite like the 'polymorphic' explanation rather then going into sakti-saktiman duality that will inevitably be disputed by those who do not subscribe to it. In other words even the act of creation itself is delegated to purusa-avatara expansions, thus God does not really 'create', and *if* He did, there are expansions, such as first prakasa expansion, that will do the 'job' of lifting such stone that he creates. Singularity or 'monomorphism' of God that is prominent in Semitic traditions, is thus the basis of this paradox, and should be accepted as limiting to God.
In other words drop the 'saktis'... -
Haribol. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
"Is Christianity compatible with Gaudiya Vaisnavism?
Compatibility is to see everything through Lord Krishna's eyes, which means to become a first class devotee. He has given facilities of the world to all souls equally according to their past work. And according to the degree of interest in Him and His service, He is available--from the small child who sees foodstuff as Supreme, all the way up to being in a direct relationship with Him as servant, friend, parent or lover. All education is valid; however, there are gradations, like the gradations from kindergarten, to first grade, up through to high school, university and post-graduate levels.
"Christians pay little attention to ISKCON members, who they don't even consider to have any signficant effect on the Western culture."
Just as a child in first grade has no interest in the university level of education.
"It is interesting to hear ISKCON members blaspheme Christians". This criticism is often done because they are either trying to protect their new faith or because they are preaching to help raise the Christians to a higher standard. Srila Prabhupada mainly criticized their not following their own commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill", and he said productive discussion of God could not take place until they followed it.
"How does Gaudiya Vaisnavism understand itself, therefore to be non-secatarian?"
Non-sectarian means it is the dharma of every soul (which is not sectarian, not bodily identified in the pure state) to surrender to and serve the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. Everyone is invited to practice surrendering and service at the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, no matter what material body they are wearing or which philosophy or religion they have been with previously. Of course it is graduate work, so not everyone has the sukriti or 'qualification' to follow it. Those unqualified souls who are pious in nature will stay where they are in the lower grades and gradually advance life after life to bhakti yoga under the guidance of the Lord in the heart Himself. UNLESS they hear the chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra and take Sri Krishna prasadam which is Srila Prabhupada's great mercy on the miserable resident of Kali Yuga. Just by hearing and eating in contact with the Lord, the qualification arises from within. -
ccd: Thanks. Imho yes, it'd look 'smoother' - but it's not the full Vedic picture. Besides, for every view there're some who don't subscribe to it.
-
[br]
Here's something about the Stone paradox. Comments welcome.VEDA:
--
Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift? (Paradox of the stone)
[br]My own lay thoughts to such paradoxes are these:[br]
[br]"Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift?" Suppose He did, or suppose He didn't - who could tell if He did or didn't? Could we, with our limited abilities, discern this? No.
[br]Or the "Can God create a square circle?" Who knows. It's not like we have the ability to see a square circle so that we could test it.[br]
[br]IOW, what is the point of trying to logically solve a problem that would require empirical verification for which we are not qualified (at least not yet)?[br]
[br]If those paradoxes were designed with the intention to refute (God's) omnipotence, then they are self-defeating from the onset. It would require omnipotence to either prove or disprove omnipotence, and if we agree we don't have omnipotence, then such proofs are beyond our abilities.
[br]Unless we presume that it is possible to prove or disprove omnipotence by less than omnipotent abilities. But I don't see how such an approach can be justified. -
Baker: Agreed. Tarko apratisthah. But sastra is pratisthah.
-
The chief factor of Christianity that distinguishes it from other religions is the belief that God became man (Jesus), suffered, died, and became undead before rising to Heaven. This torturing and killing of God's only begotten son, whom He dearly loves, was the only way by which people could be saved and go to Heaven.
Nevermind the ulimitedly heavy rock or the square circle. The actual paradox is that an omnipotent God has only one son who is at once God and not-God. God (the Father) loves his son, but has him tortured and killed, because that is the only way we can be saved.
Christian theology contradicts God's omnipotence with His having no option other than to torture and kill His beloved only son in order to save us.
On the other hand, in Caitanya Caritamrta, Lord Caitanya tells Vasudeva Datta that Krishna can liberate a whole universe of souls without any obstacle or sacrifice on His devotee's part. -
Preaching means to meet within an unfavourable environment those who are inimical,innocent and neutral.As a younger devotee i was always verbally attacked by the Christians and had to learn how to discriminate, those who were innocent and open to the eternal word of god in the form of Santana dharma.My senior devotee sankirtan leader trained me to be sincere and krishna would empower me which he regularly did .Hence when those experienced devotees told me to be averse to the ''demons''and keep away from their bewildering association.Srila Prabhupada refers to his unique preaching rasa as chop ,chop chop style .....demons and devotees.Yes all these'' kaitava'' dharma's ,cheating religious appear dominant and to a degree important within the ''prison house of durga'' but the advanced preacher is not cheated into taking their conditioned logic and sentiment seriously.Now some thirty years later, the hare krishna movement is accepted as saintly and as genuine spiritualists whose reputation in new Zealand and Australia is first class.However the christians are tolerated at best and usually ignored,while their numbers have seriously dwindled along with there sincerity of purpose.
-
Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.
-
???
Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.sri_govinda_das:
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions1,259
- Health59
- Other127
- Philosophy728
- Sadhana73
- Social217
- Tech55
In this Discussion
- Baker March 2010
- cbrahma December 2008
- ccd March 2010
- dweller-in-peace November 2009
- Gadai March 2010
- hariharibol December 2008
- Kula-pavana October 2009
- maah! October 2009
- manasi_seva January 2009
- Pandu das November 2009
- VEDA March 2010
- yogasvar January 2009