Tattva-viveka
Lord Jesus
Madhumangala Dasa - March 13, 2007 8:58 pm
Haribol. The Lenten season is upon us and soon it will be Holy Week, this is time when we remember the sacrifice and resurrection of Lord Jesus.
How should we as Vaisnavas honor Lord Jesus during this time?
Peace, Love and Krsna.
Syamasundara - March 13, 2007 10:47 pm
I am not qualified to give you an answer, but I can give you my impressions.
I would change the "should" in the question with "would."
There are so many forms of the Lord we don't formally celebrate or necessarily focus our minds on: Mohini murti, Kapiladeva, Nara-narayana. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta recognized the holiness of Vamsidas babaji, but we don't celebrate him. We don't celebrate big devotees in the Madhva and Ramanuja sampradayas, who at least worship the same form of God, so, don't get me wrong, but why "should" we celebrate Jesus Christ?
I don't mean to denigrate anybody or anything, but it's like if I identified with being a cook and thought: "I know how to cook, how should I cook Chinese?" But wait, I don't like Chinese stuff! Of course, if I were to cook Chinese, there are a few dishes I can make, and they come out pretty mean, but in general, that cuisine doesn't meet my taste. So I don't bother.
Similarly, we are spiritualists in a broad sense, but we also have a specific taste, and that is not a bad thing, and not necessarily sectarianism. We have a taste for that which is the science of taste, for he who is the king of taste. Maybe in one sense because of this we have more affinity with the intricacies of taste, devotional taste, and we can locate it and appreciate it elsewhere. I remember watching the movie Jesus of Nazareth after some four years of associating with the Vaisnavas and I swear Jesus seemed to talk about Krsna and his science all the time!
So anyway, if a Vaisnava were to celebrate "Yishu Prabhu" he would talk about sacrifice in the masterful way our Gurudeva does. There are also some parallels that can be drawn between the sacrifice of Jesus and the abuses on Haridasa Thakura, or between Jesus as a reformer and spiritual leader and our Sri Caitanyadeva.
Madhumangala Dasa - March 13, 2007 11:18 pm
Because some people have a love and appreciation for Lord Jesus and want to honor his sacrifice, especially those of us who were raised Christian. Is his message not as relevant to us as it is for the Christians? The message of the Christ is universal and society can benefit by applying it to themselves.
Syamasundara - March 13, 2007 11:39 pm
You started by saying because, and my "why" question was "why should we celebrate Jesus Christ?", and you reply "Because some people have a love and appreciation for Lord Jesus and want to honor his sacrifice," but the two things don't seem to have a very strong connection. It seems more of a personal choice, those who do have feelings are certainly not barred from gloryfying Jesus Christ; Guru Maharaja says that the very least symptom of our bhakti is a sense of gratitude.
My point is that a Vaisnava who has achieved a certain advancement will see everybody as guru, the whole world as an abode of joy, everything as worthy of gratitude and respect. So you bring Jesus Christ to his attention and he will find a way of glorifying him and see him in relation to Krsna, but so he will with just about anything else.
So my only objection was to the fact that Vaisnavas should do it in a specific way. Otherwise, of course they would.
Gopisvara Dasa - March 14, 2007 1:10 am
I think it would be a nice way to honor Jesus by seeing the universal truths contained in his teachings and attempting to put them into practice. Also to be tolerant and respectful to his followers emphasizing the similarities in our paths more than the differences.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - March 14, 2007 1:34 am
Hehe, we have so many holidays and special dates to celebrate in our own tradition, I don't understand how you get time to honor any other once!
Swami - March 14, 2007 5:19 am
Because some people have a love and appreciation for Lord Jesus and want to honor his sacrifice, especially those of us who were raised Christian. Is his message not as relevant to us as it is for the Christians? The message of the Christ is universal and society can benefit by applying it to themselves.
The questions arises as to what his sacrifice was. The significance of the resurrection is also in question. According to Christianity he died for the sins of the entire world. Belief in this and in his resurrection is central to Christianity. Believing in these things opens the door to salvation. If you do not belive in them, you will have a difficult time convincing Christians that you honor Jesus.
If you honor what you think he said or did in terms of what you understand to be true in Gaudiya Vaisnavism, you really only honor Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is good, of course, to find common ground with Christianity as much as possible.
There is no reliable evidence that Jesus was a sakyavesa avatara. Srila Prabhupada did describe him as such once, but he also once questioned if he was anything more than a mystic yogi. No previous acarya has acknowledged him as an avatara of Visnu, saktyavesa or otherwise. Indeed, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura once siad that Mahaprabhu's Vasudeva, who was a leper, was millions of times more advanced than Jesus. I believe that this is also cited in the Bhaktivendanta Purports (See Cc).
So we should follow the previous acaryas with regard to worship. If more recent acaryas from the West have spoken about Jesus in more flattering terms, such is often the way of prapaganda and preaching
Syamasundara - March 14, 2007 11:40 am
If you honor what you think he said or did in terms of what you understand to be true in Gaudiya Vaisnavism, you really only honor Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It is good, of course, to find common ground with Christianity as much as possible.
That's what I was tring to say!
Also, there is by now such a dychotomy between the cult formed upon and around the teachings and the person of Jesus Christ and what he really was about, much like Jainism and Rsabhadeva.
There are apochrypha gospels that tell a totally different story about Christ's purported death, or life, for that matter.
You could object that if the church didn't recognize those gospels it was for good reason (see the thread on Gauranga Nagari and Locana das), but that is the same church that directly or indirectly sanctioned and brought about attitudes like those of the Spanish conquistadores towards the native Americans. Dante Alighieri put Virgil in his inferno because as wonderful a person as he was, he was born before Jesus and he was a pagan, so how could he be any good or salved? For the Mormons not even Moses was off the hook, because he was born before. We are talking of cultures that admit one single lifetime or terrenal experience. What was the purpose of all those billion people even being born?
Apart from that, Jesus didn't teach too much philosophy, but rather exhorted people at large to have a more absorbed love relationship with their God. Today we have a Pope that does neither, he is just thundering against the policies of the surrounding lay countries (civil unions Vs marriage, staminal cells etc.) but not giving real spiritual support to the Catholic community; then again, not according to our standards, because for millions of Catholic he is doing just fine.
So, since all the virtues of Christ can be found within our culture... you see... plus some of us come from a Jewish background, there are saints and amazing people in Islam, Buddhism...
The old example of school may sound reducive but it actually illustrates the situation. Imagine somebody who is studying and creating algorhythms but feels he has to go back to primary school every once in a while to visit his or her teacher (provided they're alive 
) who taught arythmetics and without whom all progress would have been barred.
Vivek - April 7, 2007 5:11 pm
I was always reluctant to accept jesus as a saktyavesa avatara though there are references to him and muhammed in bhavisya purana( a highly interpolated text according to me and even devotee scholars). I could never understand the parellel between "kristos" and krsna which prabhupada uses and he generally uses "lord" jesus while referring to him to respect him maybe. BVT also in his english writings is taking a generous view of him. Satyaraja prabhu, maharaj's godbrothere in his book on christianity and krsna consciousness has in fact got references in old testament which point towards visnu's form. I personally cannot believe in jesus taking care of all sins(this is paul's version, jesus is not known to talk about it) though resurrection may have been possible for a mystic yogi. I generally get intelligent christians to converse and respect gaudiya vaishnavism as i honour a lot of jesus's teachings, but for many fanatic christians it is hard to respect anything else( but that can be true of even gaudiyas sometimes)
I can take good points about jesus and his saintly qualities(his self sacrifice which sridhar maharaja refers to is required in our dedication too before we reach self forgetfulness) and inspiration it gave to people like St Francis. The main thing is that as prabhupada has pointed out jesus as saktyavesa avatar many of prabhupada's followers accept him as such. The conception strong in prabhupada loyalists is that all prabhupada words are not his words they are krsna's words as prabhupada was always in touch with krsna within the heart. That makes me a prabhupada dissenter if i try to adjust some of prabhupada's quotes according to time, place and circumstance. In doing so I am doubting krsna!!
Again jesus is a open issue for devotees according to me though as maharaja said we cant believe that he took care of all the sins. Resurrection i guess is not as big of an issue.