Tattva-viveka
Comparison of Eastern and Western Religions
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 2:58 am
This theme seems to keep coming up.Whether it is the need to follow Srila Prabhupada's precedence in providing women with the Gayatri Mantra or whether Gaudiya Vaishnavas should not be allowed to wear saffron and carry the danda, the license to interpret seems to be strong in some aspects. At least under Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's Mission. There seems to be a (Gaudiya Vaishnav) cultural dichotomy in which there is a strong pull for orthodoxy and also a strong pull for improvisation.
I was recently thinking about how orthodoxy/innovation is expressed in Christianity as opposed to Eastern philosophy/religion. It seems to me that innovation and orthodoxy have a place in both traditions, but innovation finds a much more fertile field in the Eastern approach. A statement in The Story of Philosophy caught my attention. After explaining how Hinduism and Buddhism have more of a philosophical emphasis as compared to the historical emphasis of Christianity, the author says, "Perhaps partly for this reason, philosophy has developed in a more consistently symbiotic relationship with religion in the East than in the West. And, since the religions themselves are more philosophical, philosophy has been able to develop more freely in the East than it was able to do in the West during the period when it was treated as little more than a handmaiden to religion: it was allowed to have more independently interesting philosophical content."
The pointing out here of how Eastern religions are a fusion of philosophy and religion is significant. Philosophy is a process of inquiry, and therefore encourages progression. Of course we know that Srila Prabhupada also stressed the union of philosophy and religion. The more free development of Eastern religions that the quotation speaks of is clearly evident in the Vedic scriptural tradition. Truth is not something which was given in a pure form only at one time and imprisoned thereafter in a book, never to be expanded upon, rather something that is always available through revelation, which thus not only explains but expands the Vedic literature. The expansions of the original Veda are not (or at least should not) be seen as inferior: as the Narada Purana says, "The Puranas are more important than the Vedas." We repeatedly see this dynamic of the scripture that was revealed later carrying greater weight: The Bhagavatam is the cream of the Vedas. Caitanya-caritamrta is an even more advanced study than the Bhagavatam. The association of a self-realized soul is seen as the best of all. For example, in the Gita Krsna compares the Vedas to a small well and the realized devotee to a great reservoir of water. The clear idea is that as the Vedic truth expands further from the original revelation, it increases rather than diminishes in potency. This living tradition, this fertile environment for innovation, has given birth to astonishing variety and sophistication in Eastern religion.
A very different approach to scripture is evident in Christianity, other than, of course, the New Testament itself. The innovation of the New Testament (the expansion of the Bible) is clearly a one-time occurrence, however. The New Testament does not show the revelation of the apostles themselves, rather they are revered because they record the revelation of Jesus. Thus the New Testament isn't a blueprint for new revelation, as there is only one son of God. The concept of becoming a self-realized soul, a fountain of revelation, is not stressed as it is in Eastern religions, rather repentance for one's sins and acceptance of Jesus as one's savior is. Piety and good works are encouraged over personal experience. The Protestant revolution in particular did away with saints and stressed a literal understanding of the Bible. All this together clearly nurtures orthodoxy over innovation.
It is often apparent that Western devotees don't understand the dynamic nature of the Eastern approach and unwittingly limit Gaudiya Vaisnavism by their Western conditioning. This is very evident in the ritviks: Srila Prabhupada becomes Jesus, his purports the New Testament. Everyone is fallen, so to claim personal realization is pride. One attains salvation by accepting Srila Prabhupada as one's savior. Other examples are how keen Iskcon is on modeling itself after the Catholic Church (does even the Catholic Church have so many committees, sub-committees, and sub-sub-committees?). I think a deeper understanding of the Eastern approach would help Western devotees avoid the stagnation inherent in Western model.
Orthodoxy without improvisation is stagnation, and improvisation without orthodoxy is concoction.
Swami - August 13, 2008 3:58 am
The bedrock "scriptures" of Hinduism, the Upanisads, are more experiences, spontaneous expression of deep spiritual insight. Unlike Western philosophy they are not products of discursive intellect. Nor are they mere recording of historical events, however spiritual such events might be. Both intellectual exercise and historically accounts can be grasped and understood, leaving no mystery remaining. Whereas spiritual insight, inner illumination, remains a mystery no matter how much one talks about it. It is a place to go, and now, not something to merely think about or remember. And having gone there one is mystified even as one is enlightened. The Upanisads are a result of what they invite others to do: partake of a first person methodology for exploring the mystery of consciousness, the one mystery that remains standing despite the committed effort to demystify it. It is the last frontier. And it is both things at once—static and dynamic/orthodox and innovative. This is the very nature of reality, of life.
Yamuna Dasi - August 13, 2008 4:27 am
A very different approach to scripture is evident in Christianity, other than, of course, the New Testament itself. The innovation of the New Testament (the expansion of the Bible) is clearly a one-time occurrence, however. The New Testament does not show the revelation of the apostles themselves, rather they are revered because they record the revelation of Jesus. Thus the New Testament isn't a blueprint for new revelation, as there is only one son of God. The concept of becoming a self-realized soul, a fountain of revelation, is not stressed as it is in Eastern religions, rather repentance for one's sins and acceptance of Jesus as one's savior is. Piety and good works are encouraged over personal experience. The Protestant revolution in particular did away with saints and stressed a literal understanding of the Bible. All this together clearly nurtures orthodoxy over innovation.
Principally I agree with your point that this is the surface of the aisberg of Christianity seen over the water. But I want to mention the other part of it which is not so obvious for the broad public and also for the majority of the devotees who tend to underestimate the depth of Christianity.
This is what is seen of the Christianity from outside, but it is so about the Vaishnavism today if looked from outside.
For example in Orthodox Christianity (which is not much known to the westerners since Catholicism and Protestantism are more popular) it is stressed that The Holy Scripture and The Holy Oral Tradition are unseparable and one should follow both together simultaneously. This includes that the Scriptures should be studied not independently but under the guydance of a personal spiritual guide who is a holy person to avoid mental interpretations. This is same as in vaishnavism.
Orthodox Christian theology sees Catholicism as a deviation from the path since excessive importance has been given to the Holy Tradition over the Holy Scripture and this was not at all the point of what Jesus taught. This deviation of the Catholicism brought as a result the birth of the ¨deadly born child¨of Catholicism which is the Protestantism starting with the Reformation, which went from one disbalance into another opposite one in hope to find the balance, but did not. Protestantism denied the Holy Oral Tradition and placed complete stress on the Holy Scripture. In this way both Catholicis and Protestatism lost the way.... and the healthy spiritual balance.
Also regarding the personality of Christ the Orthodox dogmat is that He has simultaneously two natures divine and human which are combining in the same personality in an imaginable mystical way. It is the same as the idea of Guru tattva explained by Shridhara Maharaj.
And so many other aspects in the deep true Christianity have exact correspondence with the vaishnava philosophy. Just they are not so popular and well known.
The very word ¨chirch¨ in the original of the New Testament in old Greek is ¨eklicia¨ which means ¨gathering of saints¨ and thus the notion that one can find salvation only in the ¨church¨ in vaishnava therminology would sound ¨only through sadhu sanga¨... which is also our understanding about the way towards God.
There are also many more parralels which are broadly not known and many devotees due to lack of information consider Christianity as much less deeper waters than it actually is. Mystical deep Christianity definitely seeks personal mystical experiences and realisations, but also advices this to be done under the guidance of a holy person so that one cannot fall into the trap of pride when such experiences start coming. Is not this the same what Shril Prabhupada taught that devotee who was sharing with him his personal mystical experiences of visions of Krishna playing his flute in an blueish cloud telling him "chant more and it will disappear!"? The same idea of careful and more humble approach of not mixing the mental speculations and projections with true mystic experience. The very same idea. Even Sachi Mata doubts if the bhoga disappearing from the offering plate was a divine sign of real acceptance or just her imagination... or some animal took it... or she did not put anything in the plate just thought that she did... This humble and doubting approach which needs a confirmation from above in order to be accepted as true. The same is teaching the Christianity, through many holy persons and monks even today... and they have their sincere students as well...
Deeper water.
Christianity is a ¨blueprint for new revelation¨ because the Apostles had their own mystical revelations as described in the New Testament and so did many Christians afterwards till today which forms the Holy Tradition and it goes hand in hand with the Holy Scriptures. The lives, mystical experiences of divinity, commentaries on Scripture and teachings of the Holy Fathers were written. Christian saints live also today and their lives, mystical experiences, teachings and commentaries on the Scripture will be written. So it is a living tradition as is ours... maybe sometimes during the history losing the way or going in a crooked way... as was happening also to the vaishnavism.
Christ was a real reformer and was fighting against those who follow ¨the letter of the Scripture¨ but miss its spirit. His direct disciples the Apostles seemed to got deep understanding of what He taught them if were able as described in the New Testament to take the good decision of "no need for sircumsicion" for the new christians which was opposed by the "orthodox" claiming that Jesus was sircumsiced and so have to be all his followers. The Apostles were able to be rather innovative than "orthodox" even they were all jews and sircumcised. So they were really wise and open minded and flexible... understanding clearly the difference between following and imitating.
The very word "orthodox" which we use to indicate "traditional" rather than innovative comes from old Greek and means "correct word" (from "orthos" and "doxia"). So originally to be orthodox means to have right siddhanta and not being sceptical, old fashioned or nonsencitive for the wind of change.
In this sence we all wish to be orthodox 
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 13, 2008 2:30 pm
Principally I agree with your point that this is the surface of the aisberg of Christianity seen over the water. But I want to mention the other part of it which is not so obvious for the broad public and also for the majority of the devotees who tend to underestimate the depth of Christianity.
This is what is seen of the Christianity from outside, but it is so about the Vaishnavism today if looked from outside.
For example in Orthodox Christianity (which is not much known to the westerners since Catholicism and Protestantism are more popular) it is stressed that The Holy Scripture and The Holy Oral Tradition are unseparable and one should follow both together simultaneously. This includes that the Scriptures should be studied not independently but under the guydance of a personal spiritual guide who is a holy person to avoid mental interpretations. This is same as in vaishnavism.
Orthodox Christian theology sees Catholicism as a deviation from the path since excessive importance has been given to the Holy Tradition over the Holy Scripture and this was not at all the point of what Jesus taught. This deviation of the Catholicism brought as a result the birth of the ¨deadly born child¨of Catholicism which is the Protestantism starting with the Reformation, which went from one disbalance into another opposite one in hope to find the balance, but did not. Protestantism denied the Holy Oral Tradition and placed complete stress on the Holy Scripture. In this way both Catholicis and Protestatism lost the way.... and the healthy spiritual balance.
Also regarding the personality of Christ the Orthodox dogmat is that He has simultaneously two natures divine and human which are combining in the same personality in an imaginable mystical way. It is the same as the idea of Guru tattva explained by Shridhara Maharaj.
And so many other aspects in the deep true Christianity have exact correspondence with the vaishnava philosophy. Just they are not so popular and well known.
The very word ¨chirch¨ in the original of the New Testament in old Greek is ¨eklicia¨ which means ¨gathering of saints¨ and thus the notion that one can find salvation only in the ¨church¨ in vaishnava therminology would sound ¨only through sadhu sanga¨... which is also our understanding about the way towards God.
There are also many more parralels which are broadly not known and many devotees due to lack of information consider Christianity as much less deeper waters than it actually is. Mystical deep Christianity definitely seeks personal mystical experiences and realisations, but also advices this to be done under the guidance of a holy person so that one cannot fall into the trap of pride when such experiences start coming. Is not this the same what Shril Prabhupada taught that devotee who was sharing with him his personal mystical experiences of visions of Krishna playing his flute in an blueish cloud telling him "chant more and it will disappear!"? The same idea of careful and more humble approach of not mixing the mental speculations and projections with true mystic experience. The very same idea. Even Sachi Mata doubts if the bhoga disappearing from the offering plate was a divine sign of real acceptance or just her imagination... or some animal took it... or she did not put anything in the plate just thought that she did... This humble and doubting approach which needs a confirmation from above in order to be accepted as true. The same is teaching the Christianity, through many holy persons and monks even today... and they have their sincere students as well...
Deeper water.
Christianity is a ¨blueprint for new revelation¨ because the Apostles had their own mystical revelations as described in the New Testament and so did many Christians afterwards till today which forms the Holy Tradition and it goes hand in hand with the Holy Scriptures. The lives, mystical experiences of divinity, commentaries on Scripture and teachings of the Holy Fathers were written. Christian saints live also today and their lives, mystical experiences, teachings and commentaries on the Scripture will be written. So it is a living tradition as is ours... maybe sometimes during the history losing the way or going in a crooked way... as was happening also to the vaishnavism.
Christ was a real reformer and was fighting against those who follow ¨the letter of the Scripture¨ but miss its spirit. His direct disciples the Apostles seemed to got deep understanding of what He taught them if were able as described in the New Testament to take the good decision of "no need for sircumsicion" for the new christians which was opposed by the "orthodox" claiming that Jesus was sircumsiced and so have to be all his followers. The Apostles were able to be rather innovative than "orthodox" even they were all jews and sircumcised. So they were really wise and open minded and flexible... understanding clearly the difference between following and imitating.
The very word "orthodox" which we use to indicate "traditional" rather than innovative comes from old Greek and means "correct word" (from "orthos" and "doxia"). So originally to be orthodox means to have right siddhanta and not being sceptical, old fashioned or nonsencitive for the wind of change.
In this sence we all wish to be orthodox
Yes to some extent there have been philosophical deliberations on Christianity but as GM pointed they are of a product of discursive intellectual exercise. But I certainly admire people like St Francis of Acissi who can be considered more advanced in many ways than many GV practitioners preaching and reaching out to masses.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 2:42 pm
Note: I split the above posts from the Gayatri thread into this new topic.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 2:56 pm
The bedrock "scriptures" of Hinduism, the Upanisads, are more experiences, spontaneous expression of deep spiritual insight. Unlike Western philosophy they are not products of discursive intellect. Nor are they mere recording of historical events, however spiritual such events might be. Both intellectual exercise and historically accounts can be grasped and understood, leaving no mystery remaining. Whereas spiritual insight, inner illumination, remains a mystery no matter how much one talks about it. It is a place to go, and now, not something to merely think about or remember. And having gone there one is mystified even as one is enlightened. The Upanisads are a result of what they invite others to do: partake of a first person methodology for exploring the mystery of consciousness, the one mystery that remains standing despite the committed effort to demystify it. It is the last frontier. And it is both things at once—static and dynamic/orthodox and innovative. This is the very nature of reality, of life.
Excellent points. It really made my own Western conditioning apparent to me. I've often felt like Eastern scriptures could be tightened up a bit: follow a more logical progression sometimes, address some of the contradictions, etc. Ha! I'm clearly seeing the tendency to want to fit everything within my rational mind, which of course is a desire to control and which can only end in boredom. The impulse for orthodoxy can also be a reflection of this desire to control: to pin something down, dissect it, and make sure it does doesn't change on you and catch you unawares...to have to actually think or deal with ambiguities.
Experience, so unpredictable and free...who can claim a monopoly on that?
Swami - August 13, 2008 3:18 pm
Yes to some extent there have been philosophical deliberations on Christianity but as GM pointed they are of a product of discursive intellectual exercise.
Yes, and Christianity's revelation, its scripture, is the "mere recording of historical events, however spiritual such events might be," with some reflection on these events—Christ's descent, death and resurrection—his life. It is not the realization of the nature of being via a transrational first person methodology that attracts grace.
Vamsidhari Dasa - August 13, 2008 3:27 pm
Ha! I'm clearly seeing the tendency to want to fit everything within my rational mind, which of course is a desire to control and which can only end in boredom. The impulse for orthodoxy can also be a reflection of this desire to control: to pin something down, dissect it, and make sure it does doesn't change on you and catch you unawares...to have to actually think or deal with ambiguities.
Experience, so unpredictable and free...who can claim a monopoly on that?
Boredom would be a good result of this tendency, but what about frustration, anger, spinning is circles, for control is only illusionary. Maybe some sadness, and finally freedom from the bounds of the need to control and "understand". I would not agree that this tendency is a product of a Western mind, but more of a "rationalizing mind" that is not just a mind of the West. Knowing by dissection in reality prevents knowing, for it becomes an observation of a dead thing just like a frog on a dissection plate or a butterfly pinned down to a box. Paradox and ambiguity is necessary for the development of knowing because it forces us to stretch the boundaries between the black and white and infuse it with some feeling that helps us tolerate our continually renewing position of a student of life forever surprised by the dynamic Reality.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:43 pm
Nice points, Vamsi.
It is true that this is the rational mind, not the Western mind, but I was just pointing out the Western world has stressed this approach to such an extent that it is natural for those born in the West to have this bias when approaching Eastern teachings, which as Guru Maharaja mentioned are based more on experience.
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 13, 2008 3:48 pm
[preliminary note: thank you for thought-provoking post, Yamuna. I'm short on time, so I will respond to the second half of the post later. I look forward to learning more about Orthodox Christianity.]
If I compare the Bible and say the Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam, I find that the Bible is dwarfed philosophically. This was also the conclusion of the philosophy professor I quoted. Although I agree that the orientation of most practitioners East or West is external, I still hold that an objective comparison of the traditions themselves shows some striking and noteworthy differences.Principally I agree with your point that this is the surface of the aisberg of Christianity seen over the water. But I want to mention the other part of it which is not so obvious for the broad public and also for the majority of the devotees who tend to underestimate the depth of Christianity.
This is what is seen of the Christianity from outside, but it is so about the Vaishnavism today if looked from outside.
For example in Orthodox Christianity (which is not much known to the westerners since Catholicism and Protestantism are more popular) it is stressed that The Holy Scripture and The Holy Oral Tradition are unseparable and one should follow both together simultaneously. This includes that the Scriptures should be studied not independently but under the guydance of a personal spiritual guide who is a holy person to avoid mental interpretations. This is same as in vaishnavism.
Orthodox Christian theology sees Catholicism as a deviation from the path since excessive importance has been given to the Holy Tradition over the Holy Scripture and this was not at all the point of what Jesus taught. This deviation of the Catholicism brought as a result the birth of the ¨deadly born child¨of Catholicism which is the Protestantism starting with the Reformation, which went from one disbalance into another opposite one in hope to find the balance, but did not. Protestantism denied the Holy Oral Tradition and placed complete stress on the Holy Scripture. In this way both Catholicis and Protestatism lost the way.... and the healthy spiritual balance.
From the Gaudiya perspective, Catholicism's stress on saints and spiritual authority brings it somewhat closer to Vaisnavism than Protestantism. I was wondering what the difference is between the Holy Oral Tradition of Orthodox Christianity and the Holy Tradition of Catholicism. I don't know much about Orthodox Christianity except that I really liked The Way of the Pilgrim when I read it about twenty years ago. The stress on experience and the similarity between japa and the author's chanting of the Jesus prayer was striking.
Also regarding the personality of Christ the Orthodox dogmat is that He has simultaneously two natures divine and human which are combining in the same personality in an imaginable mystical way. It is the same as the idea of Guru tattva explained by Shridhara Maharaj.
And so many other aspects in the deep true Christianity have exact correspondence with the vaishnava philosophy. Just they are not so popular and well known.
The very word ¨chirch¨ in the original of the New Testament in old Greek is ¨eklicia¨ which means ¨gathering of saints¨ and thus the notion that one can find salvation only in the ¨church¨ in vaishnava therminology would sound ¨only through sadhu sanga¨... which is also our understanding about the way towards God.
There are also many more parralels which are broadly not known and many devotees due to lack of information consider Christianity as much less deeper waters than it actually is. Mystical deep Christianity definitely seeks personal mystical experiences and realisations, but also advices this to be done under the guidance of a holy person so that one cannot fall into the trap of pride when such experiences start coming. Is not this the same what Shril Prabhupada taught that devotee who was sharing with him his personal mystical experiences of visions of Krishna playing his flute in an blueish cloud telling him "chant more and it will disappear!"? The same idea of careful and more humble approach of not mixing the mental speculations and projections with true mystic experience. The very same idea. Even Sachi Mata doubts if the bhoga disappearing from the offering plate was a divine sign of real acceptance or just her imagination... or some animal took it... or she did not put anything in the plate just thought that she did... This humble and doubting approach which needs a confirmation from above in order to be accepted as true. The same is teaching the Christianity, through many holy persons and monks even today... and they have their sincere students as well...
Deeper water.
I have a very surface understanding of Christianity, but I am interesting in learning more. The doubt that arises for me is that the similarities you wrote about seem superficial. Isn't the concept of Jesus's divine and human nature commonly accepted in Christianity (the human nature evident in his temptation)? The idea of the need for a careful and humble approach seems universal and not particularly noteworthy. The stress on the need for the guidance of a holy person is also there in Catholicism, does it come closer to the concept of a guru in Orthodox Christianity? If it does, it takes it closer in the direction of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, but these are still rather elementary (though fundamental) concepts, which are common to many spiritual and even material paths.
Vamsidhari Dasa - August 14, 2008 12:04 am
Nice points, Vamsi!
It is true that this is the rational mind, not the Western mind, but I was just pointing out the Western world has stressed this approach to such an extent that it is natural for those born in the West to have this bias when approaching Eastern teachings, which as Guru Maharaja mentioned are based more on experience.
Thanks Vrinda!
I agree with you that this kind of thinking has been emphasized in the West since the Reformation, however, contemporary thought eastern, western, and otherwise is no longer so linear (what about the northern and southern?). Here we are talking about traditions and you are right they, at least to us, appear to be as described. I also agree a bit with Yamuna because at least to me it appears that the deeper we dwell into a teaching, the less one appears different from another, but yet again there are depths and then there are Depths.
Swami - August 14, 2008 1:45 am
Thanks Vrinda!
I agree with you that this kind of thinking has been emphasized in the West since the Reformation, however, contemporary thought eastern, western, and otherwise is no longer so linear (what about the northern and southern?). Here we are talking about traditions and you are right they, at least to us, appear to be as described. I also agree a bit with Yamuna because at least to me it appears that the deeper we dwell into a teaching, the less one appears different from another, but yet again there are depths and then there are Depths. :Shame On You:
Despite the fact that there has been some merging of dispositions in the world today, because the traditions are different, to the extent that they are actually understood I think they attract different kinds of people, people of different dispositions. Seems hard to get away from that. There is a lot of information available and this no doubt brings people closer in one sense. Still people react to information differently. Indians do come West and embrace Western sensibilities as much as Westerners go East and embrace Eastern sensibilities. At the same time each of them retain some East and some West but in ways that set them apart as much or more than merge them together.
It's truth that has the power to unite people in an enduring sense and that is not Eastern or Western. However, the present discussion seems to be centered, in one sense, on how much truth there is in Christian revelation as opposed to Hindu revelation, how much either of them fosters the paradox of orthodoxy/innovation or a static/dynamic nature of being. It seems to me that Vedanta has a lot more going for it than Christianity in this regard—always has and always will.
It is true to an extent that the deeper one goes in either tradition the more they have in common, but as you say "there is deep and Deep". This to me says, and accurately so, that if we go really deep the two separate from one another. Otherwise, so far only superficial similarities have been mentioned.
Citta Hari Dasa - August 14, 2008 2:42 am
Another big difference between Eastern paths and Christianity is the martyr concept. While of course sacrifice is a big part of any genuine path--Eastern or Western--Christianity seems to hinge on this idea. Genuine insight into the nature of being is completely downplayed if acknowledged at all in favor of what ostensibly looks like total surrender. But when we compare the nature and quality of that surrender to a path like Gaudiya Vaisnavism it begins to resemble a more subtle form of selfishness and less a vital spiritual path at all. Christians hold martyrdom to be the ultimate in sacrifice, while in Eastern paths there is far more to surrender than one's body.
Syamasundara - August 14, 2008 3:08 am
The parts that are in common are the very basics of any healthy spiritual path, but when it comes to rasa-vicara, GV leaves all behind. In fact, even within India and Vedic thought, the knowledge or rasa-tattva represents the abyss that not everyone ventures in, and most don't even know about.
Vamsidhari Dasa - August 14, 2008 3:51 pm
It is true to an extent that the deeper one goes in either tradition the more they have in common, but as you say "there is deep and Deep". This to me says, and accurately so, that if we go really deep the two separate from one another. Otherwise, so far only superficial similarities have been mentioned.
My thoughts exactly. I can only endeavor to splash around the superficial waters not wanting to speak of deep sea diving I know nothing about. When it comes to the heart of Saints of any tradition, I remain respectfully at the shore, knowing that there is an Ocean of milk but only occasionally just touching the waters at the Stinson Beach. :Shame On You:
Vrindaranya Dasi - August 14, 2008 3:54 pm
Perhaps "lively" or "dynamic" would have been a better word than "living" to describe Eastern religion. I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is dead or that they have no saints. What I was appreciating was the innovation that Eastern religion encourages.Christianity is a ¨blueprint for new revelation¨ because the Apostles had their own mystical revelations as described in the New Testament and so did many Christians afterwards till today which forms the Holy Tradition and it goes hand in hand with the Holy Scriptures. The lives, mystical experiences of divinity, commentaries on Scripture and teachings of the Holy Fathers were written. Christian saints live also today and their lives, mystical experiences, teachings and commentaries on the Scripture will be written. So it is a living tradition as is ours... maybe sometimes during the history losing the way or going in a crooked way... as was happening also to the vaishnavism.
Although the different branches of Christianity have their saints, teachings, and commentaries, they are all so similar when compared to the variety of Hinduism. What exactly is the difference in prayojana in the various branches of Christianity? In other words, how exactly does the experience of the saint who started the branch differ from that of other experiencers? What we find is that rather than the different branches being founded on the basis of different experiences, they are mostly formed for political or reactionary reasons. The prayojana (again, the experience that the practitioners are pursuing) is vague in all branches of Christianity, what to speak of differentiating between the branches. Very little is revealed about experience in transcendence itself.
In Hinduism we find that the major branches are formed on the basis of different experiences of the founders and systematic sadhanas are given as a way for practitioners to access this experience. Consider, for example, the different sadhyas of Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and Sri Caitanya. Whereas life in transcendence is hardly discussed in Christianity, Hinduism provides a detailed, scientific map (while of course underscoring the inherent lack in expressing the unlimited: "transcendence is not that which can't be talked about, but that which one cannot say enough.")
In terms of a dynamic literary tradition, consider our own tradition: how many of us have read even one of the four Vedas? The Srimad Bhagavatam more clearly draws out the experience we're after, and the Caitanya-caritamrta more closely still. This is accepted in Hinduism (of course, there is always debate with the branches, but this is essential: it's not that any experience is automatically accepted; rather, it must prove it's within the boundaries of true spiritual experience). What book eclipses the Bible for any branch of Christianity? Perhaps none but the Book of Mormon. The Mormons also have a more developed sadhya than Christians. However, the spiritual nature of the experience of Joseph Smith, Jr. is questionable. Orthodox Christianity will keep out a Joseph Smith, but will it accept (or produce) a Ramanuja or Madhva?
When you compare the different sadhanas in Hinduism (the major categories--karma, bhakti, jnana, yoga--and then the more subtle variations) to that in Christianity, you also see that the variety of Christianity is very limited.
You say that the Apostles had mystical experiences recorded in the Bible, and that the Bible is therefore a blueprint for new revelation. In context, "new revelation" meant a new major branch; for example, the New Testament marks a major "new revelation." The books of the New Testament record Jesus's life and teaching, slightly different viewpoints based on the different apostles. So the major point of their writing is to substantiate Jesus's "experience," if you will. Naturally it is expected that those who follow the sadhana Jesus outlines will taste (and eventually fully enter) this experience that Jesus has revealed. So again, I was pointing out how the philosophical nature of the Vedas is fertile ground for "orthodox" innovation to spring. I didn't mean that Christians don't have experience, just that their tradition isn't as dynamic in the sense of giving birth to spiritual variety. This, I believe, is due to the more historical than philosophical nature of the Bible.
Christ was a real reformer and was fighting against those who follow ¨the letter of the Scripture¨ but miss its spirit. His direct disciples the Apostles seemed to got deep understanding of what He taught them if were able as described in the New Testament to take the good decision of "no need for sircumsicion" for the new christians which was opposed by the "orthodox" claiming that Jesus was sircumsiced and so have to be all his followers. The Apostles were able to be rather innovative than "orthodox" even they were all jews and sircumcised. So they were really wise and open minded and flexible... understanding clearly the difference between following and imitating.
Yes, but my point was that after Jesus and the New Testament the innovation becomes very limited in comparison to the different branches of Hinduism.
The very word "orthodox" which we use to indicate "traditional" rather than innovative comes from old Greek and means "correct word" (from "orthos" and "doxia"). So originally to be orthodox means to have right siddhanta and not being sceptical, old fashioned or nonsencitive for the wind of change.
In this sence we all wish to be orthodox
In Hinduism, to be truly orthodox is to be dynamic. This seems less so in Christianity. There are true saints and Jesus made wonderful innovations, but by and large Christianity has become a socio-religious approach that does not lead to transcendence but rather heaven at best. As politically incorrect as it sounds, it seems to me that more actual progress towards transcendence is evident in those following the various branches of Hinduism.
Swami - August 14, 2008 4:36 pm
Good points Vrindaranya.
So what is the prayojana of Christianity and how does it differ, if at all, in Catholicism and Lutheranism, Judaism etc.?
Furthermore, as far as I understand it there is no clear distinction made in Christianity between the body and soul. Consciousness in terms of "I-ness" as opposed to its byproduct of awareness is not identified with the true self, nor is the false self consisting of a material personality seen as something to dissolve. Thus Christians seems to have difficulty with reincarnation, thinking "I don't want to be somebody else."
Prahlad Das - August 14, 2008 6:16 pm
There seems to be a (Gaudiya Vaishnav) cultural dichotomy in which there is a strong pull for orthodoxy and also a strong pull for improvisation.
The very word "orthodox" which we use to indicate "traditional" rather than innovative comes from old Greek and means "correct word" (from "orthos" and "doxia"). So originally to be orthodox means to have right siddhanta and not being sceptical, old fashioned or nonsencitive for the wind of change.
In this sence we all wish to be orthodox :Shame On You:
Thank you for the literal translation of orthodox. I did not know that and amend my statement from orthodoxy to tradition. I met a nice Greek man before who took offense to the term agnostic. I used it in contemporary usage meaning, "one who believes that there is a higher power but just doesn't think we have a grasp on what that power is." I now know this is called agnostic theism. He gave some history as to why the word agnostic exists. I understood that it was a term for people who didn't know the gospel of Christianity. a=none gnost=knowledge... something to that effect.
Prahlad Das - August 14, 2008 6:52 pm
Good points Vrindaranya.
So what is the prayojana of Christianity and how does it differ, if at all, in Catholicism and Lutheranism, Judaism etc.?
Furthermore, as far as I understand it there is no clear distinction made in Christianity between the body and soul. Consciousness in terms of "I-ness" as opposed to its byproduct of awareness is not identified with the true self, nor is the false self consisting of a material personality seen as something to dissolve. Thus Christians seems to have difficulty with reincarnation, thinking "I don't want to be somebody else."
In conversations with Christians I have found a common thread. (I am not sure if it is globally common or limited to my region). I understand that Jesus didn't come so much as to teach us (if at all) but to die for our sins, and in doing so we become purified through acceptance that he saved us. This seems to be the main tenet for Christianity. After such acceptance, (we are sinners until we accept Christ) we are on the "short" path to Heaven. In heaven we can be with Christ and interact with him and his followers in a "heavenly" way. The concept of heaven seems to be of contention, with some believing we will wear long, flowing, white robes, have wings on our backs and play trumpets and harps. Others believe it will be similar to our current life albeit in a heavenly fashion. There definitely doesn't seem to be a distinction between body and soul at this time. There is quite a bit of interpretation and evolution in Christianity and it is curious to see where Christianity will be in a couple hundred years from now. Some Christians get ecstatic thinking that some day they will be in the presence of their Lord. This seems to be enough for them. As far as dynamic interaction, I'm not sure if they have a notion of it.
In Gaudiya Vaishnav philosophy, the ways of bhakti include becoming friendly with Sri Krsna. In as much as I can't imagine what that could ultimately be like, I can see it as being a progressive path of introspection of values along with being interested in the interests of Sri Krsna. I don't think Christianity has a counterpart to this.
Swami - August 16, 2008 1:42 am
Regarding the extent to which Hindu scripture lends itself to innovation in comparison to the Christian Bible, the following understanding is interesting.
Jitendra Nath Mohanty (Temple and Emory Univerities) suggests that the term "'apaurusheya'" does not literally mean 'authorless' but indicates a devaluation of the monologic/intended meaning of a text and an affirmation of the freedom of the text to be open to altering interpretations within subsequent horizons of reception as it travels through time. In the reception of a text by a later generation, it is its supposedly timeless intention ('tatparya') that "recedes" into 'anonymity,' and the text, liberated from the false closure of 'intention,' discloses a 'plasticity [of] hermeneutic possibilities.'" (Professor A.V. Ashok)
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 12:42 am
The prayojana (again, the experience that the practitioners are pursuing) is vague in all branches of Christianity, what to speak of differentiating between the branches. Very little is revealed about experience in transcendence itself.
Hari bol, Vrindaranya Devi!
I would not say that prayojana pursued in Christianity is vague since it's mentioned at many places, one of them is:
Matthew 5.8:
“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”
From this we can see (even if we have to be surprised in our expectations) that the prayojana of Christianity is an eternal personal living experience and life with God in service to Him. And if we want to be objective we have to confess that so is ours.
It is without any doubt true that in our Scriptures much more details about the options and variety of this personal God-experience are given than into the Bible. But let's not forget that also this is given in a step-by-step process, not everything is given at once and to all. There are more secret teachings and details that one gets access to when the right time comes. And this is measured by the personal preceptor - Guru. Shrimati Radharani is not even mentioned in Bhagavatam... Mahabharata stresses on other aspects, not as intimate regarding God-association as does Bhagavatam or CC.
In the New Testament the personal experiences which one will have with God are very vaguely described in order to be avoided speculations. The message is into the direction: "follow the right path and when you reach there by grace and invitation from above, you will see it and experiences it all yourself... words cannot describe this divine reality, so reach there and you will have this full experience yourself". Sometimes our spiritual masters also stop us when we are trying to rush into something that we are not ready for and we agree that this is the right thing. Otherwise it would be as Shridhara Maharaj says "fools are rushing where angels don't dare to step" (sorry if the quote is not exact).
In this way the prayojana of Christianity is not at all low - it's a personal living association with God in eternity where the source of the pleasure derived by the soul will be its loving service to Him.
Also let's not forget that Jesus Christ had a broader circle of 70 disciples and a narrow one of the 12 Apostles. Obviously He was giving to them different depths of the teaching and none of them ever claimed that everything had been written down into the New Testament. Many details could have been kept for the oral personal preaching and guidance and not giving to the general public.
One more thought in this direction - even if Jesus Christ had not (on the surface of reading the New Testament) given to His disciples the theory of the karma as we know it, He certainly said that one has to reap what he had sown. And even if we accept the idea that He did not give the karma tattva in its fullness, He could have had a good preaching reasons for this - for example by telling them "one life and then follows judgment" - this is true, after every life there is judgment... and also the life of the soul is one since it does not die... It could be that He wanted to stress more on the personal responsibility for every action and not give them the possibility to postpone changes and improvements for their future lives. Urgency - don't wait, get better right now! In this way if some part of the truth is not told to the general public in order to stress on a valid preaching aspect, is this bad? If Mahabharata did not tell the story of Parikshit Maharaj in the same way as Bhagavatam did in order to stress other truths - is it bad? Preaching is free to give portions of the truth suitable for the audience. And this is right.
Misunderstandings are always possible and would happen, but this seems to be unavoidable since it depends on the level of sincerity. This is valid both for Christianity and for our own tradition. For example ISKCON still believes that the jivas had fallen from Goloka and they back-up their belief with quotes from Shrila Prabhupad... even with "Back Home Back to Godhead", no matter that there are so many verses all over Gita where it is said "na nivartante" - "never comes back".
Maybe Maharaj can help us understand better why did Shrila Prabhupad say things into the direction that jiva falls from Goloka? Maybe the context in which he said it was different and he did not mean that... or maybe for some preaching purpose he wanted to stress the idea of going back to a place where the soul belongs by its nature...
Still my main point is - not to underestimate the prayojana of the Christianity because we might be surprised that it is same as ours. We don’t need to build the pillar of glory for our prayojana on the ashes of their prayojana. Maybe they don't have so many details about how it would be "then and there", but when the time comes maybe they will... who knows... or maybe they will be given the pleasant surprise to experience it directly And maybe I as a vaishnava will be left with the theoretical knowledge of the details about rasa-lila without being given the entrance into it... If there would be a question of choice, I would choose the first! 
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 1:01 am
Regarding your point that very little is revealed about experience in transcendence itself, if you mean into the Bible, let me repeat that the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition have to be followed simultaneously (according to the Orthodox Christianity). The Holy Tradition contains the teaching of the saints and sages, the Holy Fathers, and many of them give more details about their personal living experiences with divinity and they are described in the Scriptures dedicated to their lives. The message of these writings is that one can also reach to have such experiences himself. Also some more detailed and mystical personal practices (sadhana) are given which can take one there – like chanting on beads and putting himself under the spiritual guidance of a holy and wise person.
In this line of thought, yes you are right that little is revealed about experience in transcendence itself in the Bible, but so is in the four Vedas or in Mahabharata. More details are given in Bhagavatam… and more in CC. In the same way in Christianity more details are given to those who search for them in the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Church and even more by the preceptors of those who enter deeper into following these teachings. This is the living Holy Tradition.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 2:01 am
What exactly is the difference in prayojana in the various branches of Christianity? In other words, how exactly does the experience of the saint who started the branch differ from that of other experiencers? What we find is that rather than the different branches being founded on the basis of different experiences, they are mostly formed for political or reactionary reasons.
Most of the times the ideas and details about the prayojana are drawn not by a direct personal mystical experience, but based on interpretations of the Revealed Scriptures. And this is valid both for Christian traditions and for Hindu ones.
But still if you are asking what exactly is the difference in prayojana in the various branches of Christianity, I can give you just few examples without entering into more details, just to give you an idea that it exists.
Different Christian churches believe in a different way regarding how the soul will enter so to say the pastimes of God – with a material body or not. Also they differ into their understanding what will be the relations between the different souls in Heaven (the spiritual world in Christian terminology) – some consider that the souls will not be engaged in family life since they will serve God directly and no place for “personal affairs and interactions” since they would distract the soul from the pure service of God, while others believe that the souls will have their spiritual families and interactions and this will not distract or diminish their service to God. In other words if the pastimes there will be only God-centered or space for personal relations between the souls will be given. For example the Mormons believe that same family will be preserved in heaven as it was on earth, while Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants generally do not believe so. Also there are differences regarding how the soul will enter the eternal realm of God – weather there will be only two options – Hell and Heaven, or there will be also a Purgatory. From those who believe that there will be also Purgatory, there are also differences regarding which souls will have to pass through there and for how long.
Since the Final Judgment is also the entrance point for the spiritual realm (heaven), differences are in opinion regarding when exactly it will come. Some Christian Churches (like different Adventist ones) dared to specify exact dates for this event (based on some descriptions given in the last book of the New Testament i.e. Revelation), which had passed for the great disappointment of their followers while others stick to the words of the New Testament that only God knows when it will happen. Regarding which will be the souls which will enter the Kingdom of God some Churches (Protestant ones) believe in predestination, that God had predestined which souls will enter Heaven and which will enter Hell. This opinion is completely denied from the majority of Christian Churches which believe in the free will over the predestination.
Some believe that the souls in heaven will be like angels flying with wings over rivers of milk and honey, while others imagine the Kingdom of God in a more abstract way, as another dimension of consciousness and consider a low level anthropomorphism to try to describe in a precise humanlike way the Kingdom of God.
Etc. etc.
As you can see there are quite difference in prayojana inside Christianity. And we cannot say that the reasons for these differences are mainly “political or reactionary”. They are very complex and many times personal or historical. So is regarding differences in prayojana in Hinduism or even in vaishnavism having also 4 main vaishnava sampradayas, not just one, and they do differ also in prayojana (as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong). There are some differences in details in the opinions regarding prayojana even between different vaishnava acharias inside one and same sampradaya.
You can see as I mentioned above that even between us and ISKCON (and we belong to the same sampradaya, even we have same grand father Shrila Prabhupad) there is difference in prayojana in even such a basic point as if the soul goes to Goloka after being fallen from there or it will be the first and ultimate time when it will experience its entrance there. And as you can see by this example, this difference in prayojana is not based on experiences, but on commentaries on both Shastra and Shrila Prabhupad's words.
As a conclusion - why do we have to search in Christianity differences in prayojana based on personal experiences, when in our own tradition such differences are mainly based not on experience, but on the way and level of understanding Shastra and words of Guru?
Or if I have to put it with your words - how exactly does the experience of an ISKCON member regarding Goloka differ from that of other experiencers? Can we say that “what we find is that rather than the different branches being founded on the basis of different experiences, they are mostly formed for political or reactionary reasons”? 
I would prefer to be more soft in my opinion and say that it's a question of the depth of understanding Shrila Prabhupad's words in the complete context of all his words and all the Revealed Scriptures.
And I believe same is valid regarding Christianity and their differences regarding prayojana.
I am also somehow sure that there certainly will be a lot of surprises for each of us when/if we reach the lila, since without surprise it would not be completely satisfying for the adventurous nature of the soul.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 2:33 am
Whereas life in transcendence is hardly discussed in Christianity, Hinduism provides a detailed, scientific map.
May I dare to provoke you in the role of Devil's Advocate?
There are good reasons for the transcendence not being discussed in much detail in Christianity and it is in order to be avoided speculations and wrong interpretations. It is preferred to be given more space to the surprising personal experience of it when the time comes.
While even though in Hinduism much more details are provided regarding the life in transcendence, this is a reason for so many different and contradicting each other branches being born. This is very confusing for the practitioner who gets lost into all this huge variety of contradictions. So many details should not be given!
Hinduism does not provide a map, but maps... all of them claiming to be the right one even when directly contradicting to one another.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 2:49 am
What book eclipses the Bible for any branch of Christianity? Perhaps none but the Book of Mormon. The Mormons also have a more developed sadhya than Christians. However, the spiritual nature of the experience of Joseph Smith, Jr. is questionable. Orthodox Christianity will keep out a Joseph Smith, but will it accept (or produce) a Ramanuja or Madhva?
Christianity (both Orthodox and Catholic) does accept many other books which eclipse the Bible. As I mentioned there is the Holy Tradition (for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism), which is open in time towards the future, adding more and more new books. These books are not included in the Bible, but they form the accepted Holy Tradition literature which is ever expanding. Of course the books and the saints which are accepted as part of the Holy Tradition are accepted as such if they conform with the Holy Scripture i.e. the Bible.
Orthodox Christianity does keep out a Joseph Smith, due to many reasons and does doubt the spiritual depth of his experiences, but it also does have its Saints and Holy Fathers, which for the Orthodox Christians are no smaller in spiritual merit than Ramanuja or Madhva for the Hindus.
What means “sadhya”?
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 3:36 am
When you compare the different sadhanas in Hinduism (the major categories--karma, bhakti, jnana, yoga--and then the more subtle variations) to that in Christianity, you also see that the variety of Christianity is very limited.
You say that the Apostles had mystical experiences recorded in the Bible, and that the Bible is therefore a blueprint for new revelation. In context, "new revelation" meant a new major branch; for example, the New Testament marks a major "new revelation." The books of the New Testament record Jesus's life and teaching, slightly different viewpoints based on the different apostles. So the major point of their writing is to substantiate Jesus's "experience," if you will. Naturally it is expected that those who follow the sadhana Jesus outlines will taste (and eventually fully enter) this experience that Jesus has revealed. So again, I was pointing out how the philosophical nature of the Vedas is fertile ground for "orthodox" innovation to spring. I didn't mean that Christians don't have experience, just that their tradition isn't as dynamic in the sense of giving birth to spiritual variety. This, I believe, is due to the more historical than philosophical nature of the Bible.
If a spiritual tradition does not give birth to as big spiritual variety as Hinduism, does it necessarily mean that it is not as dynamic?
Hinduism gave birth to lines as sahajiyas, demigod worshipers offering human sacrifices and many impersonal lines, even to another "religion" - Buddhism... Christianity gave birth to the Catholic Inquisition, protestant churches believing in complete predestination and complete lack of free will and Cu-Cluks-Clan (in the sense they also consider themselves followers of Christ and the Bible, quoting evidences for the validity of the God-approved slavery from both the Old and the New Testament). Isn't this enough as a range of variety for both Christianity and Hinduism?
A Christian can certainly say the same about Mahabharata or Bhagavatam - that they are "more historical than philosophical".
I find both the Bible and Bhagavatam containing direct multilevel and multistage instructions for the practitioners and everybody can follow and position himself at the level he/she can reach of devotion and dedication. I personally had chosen Bhagavatam and Gurudeva as my guides, but at the same time I don’t wish to underestimate the Bible and the holy fathers as the personal guides for other people.
Krishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepted initiation in order to stress the importance of acceptance of a living preceptor, Guru. So did Jesus by accepting baptism from John as a form of initiation. Both in Hinduism and in Christianity there are people who go further in their spiritual effort than just accepting a certain Scripture as a guide and accept the more detailed guidance of a living preceptor - Guru or spiritual father, and there are such people who do not, being the majority. In this way the majority follows mostly the Scripture (as much as it understands it) and much less are those who wish to reach deeper and chose to have Guru/spiritual father as a personal guide along with the Scripture.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 3:47 am
Yes, but my point was that after Jesus and the New Testament the innovation becomes very limited in comparison to the different branches of Hinduism.
You consider so because you ignore the Holy Tradition literature which is extremely vast.
Also consider the fact that Christianity is only 2000 years old. Compared with Hinduism it's a very young religion.
But Christianity being 2000 years old has more branches than for example Gaudiya Vaishnavism, dating 500 years back. And on its turn Gaudiya Vaishnavism has more branches than for example the Bahay religion. Timing does matter.
Also the level of innovation is not always measured only by the variety produced.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 4:12 am
In Hinduism, to be truly orthodox is to be dynamic. This seems less so in Christianity. There are true saints and Jesus made wonderful innovations, but by and large Christianity has become a socio-religious approach that does not lead to transcendence but rather heaven at best. As politically incorrect as it sounds, it seems to me that more actual progress towards transcendence is evident in those following the various branches of Hinduism.
The nowadays orthodox Hindu society is much less dynamic than you see it, not being able even to overcome a deep bondage to cast system based on birth, in which if you dare to marry somebody from other cast (or even cast division different from the one you belong, since casts are not just 4 but each had hundreds of divisions) the society is most probable to despise you and reject you. The idea that "In Hinduism, to be truly orthodox is to be dynamic" is followed by very few spiritually advanced persons, not at all by the majority in Hinduism.
What you have said that "large Christianity has become a socio-religious approach that does not lead to transcendence" is completely valid also regarding large Hinduism. As Krishna says in Gita - one of many can be interested in true spirituality and one of many interested can take the path and one of many who take the path will reach the final goal. Such persons are indeed sudurlabha, very rare. I find these words of Krishna valid for both Hinduism and Christianity.
I don't need numbers in order to support my personal choice of the path of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (being a very tiny part of the broadband of Hinduism) rather than Christianity. The major reason for my choice is most probably because I found my personal guide in the face of my Gurudeva while I did not have the chance to find a personal preceptor Christian and since I met my Gurudeva I was satisfied and did not continue my search for personal guide in Christianity any more. Somehow thus had happen in my life and I embraced it happily. It might have happen vice versa in the life of others and I can completely understand their choice without further objection.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 4:27 am
Thank you for the literal translation of orthodox. I did not know that and amend my statement from orthodoxy to tradition. I met a nice Greek man before who took offense to the term agnostic. I used it in contemporary usage meaning, "one who believes that there is a higher power but just doesn't think we have a grasp on what that power is." I now know this is called agnostic theism. He gave some history as to why the word agnostic exists. I understood that it was a term for people who didn't know the gospel of Christianity. a=none gnost=knowledge... something to that effect.
So many words have gradually changed their meaning or coloring with the time.
At the times of Socrates "sophists" were called those who were considered wise i.e. the philosophers. The root of the word comes from "sophia" = wisdom. But Socrates did not see them as wise and from him till now the word "sophist" has much different meaning of somebody who thinks himself to be wise while not being so. Socrates was targeting their pride and also their wisdom which compared to that of God is close to zero. He said that the real and absolute "sophist" (wise person) could be God Himself, and all those who aspire towards wisdom can be called "philosophers" - "loving the wisdom" from "phileo" = love and "sophia" = wisdom. This more humble approach towards wisdom, giving also space for divine grace to reveal itself to those who approach it an a better way is delivered better by the word "philosopher" introduced by Socrates, and so it remained, while the previous word "sophist" received it's negative hue.
Also a philosopher is then one who not only loves wisdom, but also the reservoir of wisdom - God Himself. Nobody can be a real philosopher (as the author and creator of this word i.e. Socrates meant it) if he/she does not love God. So an atheistic philosopher or atheistic philosophy can not and could not exist because it contradicts the very essence of the word. But as we know these aspects of the original meaning of the word have been lost and nowadays we speak about atheistic philosophers and atheistic philosophies.
Being the code of the thoughts, language is dynamically changing and one inevitably has to follow the flow of general understanding in order to be understood by the others, even when knowing that the original sense is not the one understood at the present moment.
In the same contradictory way the modern psychology does not accept even the existence of the soul, while the very word "psychology" means "a word for the soul" or "science for the soul" - from "psychi" - soul and "logos" – word, science. Ridiculous but true.
Prahlad Das - August 19, 2008 5:44 am
Philosophy has a new meaning (To Yamuna Dasi), Your views on Christianity are profound. If I may say, they are certainly not the way the average lay Christian understands. I think this is where rasa enters the picture. Each philosophy seems to have its counterpart of the other to a certain extent. When I say rasa I don't mean to say that Vaishnavism has the monopoly on rasa but more in the sense of which one has been melted into whose heart. Mahaprabhu's meeting with Murari Gupta went the way I think this discussion will go. I think the sincerity of the person is what matters. After that it is only a matter of time before they are able to have intimate association with the Lord and Associates.
Yamuna Dasi - August 19, 2008 11:15 am
Philosophy has a new meaning
Well, the views of the participants in this forum are also certainly not the average lay Hindu understands. And I also think that this is due to the entrance of a real and personally experienced rasa into the picture. This is why I am so happy that I am allowed to be here... finally we are all after rasa, even though looked from a bird’s view we discuss philosophy. We are like honey bees and we want to taste the honey inside the jar, not just to observe it from outside reading the label "Honey", even if we do talk about the label and the content.
I am just afraid that some devotees could feel bad about me for what I've said... but I do see it and feel it so, what can I do. Somewhere deeply inside I am sure that the disciples of Christ felt while being with Him, looking at Him and listening to Him the same what we feel when looking at and listening from our Gurudevas... the same divine touch, feeling and inspiration, and I have not but to bow down to it. If I will have to receive some slaps for it... what can I do, let it be. I cannot but do it since if I don’t, it would be a betrayal to my own conscience and feeling towards my Gurudevas.
Swami - August 19, 2008 1:57 pm
Yamuna, I think you have done some not so fancy footwork in an attempt to place Christianity and Hinduism on equal lotus footing, but in doing so you have unwittingly portrayed Christianity as a tradition that is Vaisnavism on hold for imagined preaching purposes. Thus Christianity has been subsumed within Vaisnavism such that it no longer resembles itself. For example, the Hindu doctrines of karma and reincarnation are two of the main philosophical differences between the two traditions, differences that you have done away with. One wonders if you also make meat eating a mortal sin in your idea of Christianity, and if you do, how recognizable it will be by the Holy Fathers when you are finished.
I think the fact remains that Christianity is based upon an a particular interpretation of a single unverifiable historical event that one need believe in in order to be a member and attain salvation. Whereas Vedanta is based on a world of diverse spiritual experience that one is invited to enter into and experience for oneself. Thus we have seen in the course of history that the former tradition tends to be more static and superficial in terms of innovation, whereas the latter tends to foster more nuanced insights into the nature of transcendence. There is really no comparison between the differences found in say Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodox Catholicism with regard to their understanding of the nature of reality and transcendent possibilities and the differences we find between Sri Vaisnavism and Gaudiya Vaisnavism in this regard, what to speak of the differences between the paths of jnana and bhakti. I will leave it to others to go into further detail.
Margaret Dale - August 19, 2008 5:19 pm
Please accept my humble obeisances.
I was raised as a protestant, and then became Catholic as a teenager. I feel that I have some insight into this discussion, if you will allow me to share my understanding.
It is true that Protestantism, 99.999% of the time, does follow the rubric of believing in Jesus as the prayojana. There is little philosophical development, and the teachings of the protestant branches are focused on living a good life and convincing others of Jesus' divinity and resurrection.
For Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox churches, however, believing is Jesus is the starting point of the sadhana (if you truly follow the tradition; of course the bulk of Catholics go through the ritual motions and have no idea what their tradition offers.) They speak of conversion as a lifelong process, with baptism/confirmation being merely the first step along the path. The church says that all practitioners are called to be saints. The best insight I have found into what sainthood and holiness mean in the catholic church is through reading the writings of the saints. These people spend a great deal of time in meditation, have a personal and immediate relationship with Jesus, and invariably have a senior member of the church as a spiritual guide, whose word they rely on to make both material and spiritual decisions. The flavors of the relationships with Jesus vary with the saint, from service (St. Faustina) to lover (St. Teresa). Nuns that I have personally known seem to have mostly a friendly relationship with Jesus, speaking frankly to him and chastising him in a loving way. Saints in religious life as monks and nuns often have no charitable works aimed at promoting human material welfare, but are recognized for their deep inner life. Often a saint will introduce new icons, prayers and revelations that Jesus or Mary have specifically asked them to share. St. Faustina of last century is an example, and shows that this trend continues. Many saints have their own cults, with members relying on the relationship that the saint has with God to assist the petitioner in their spiritual or material life. There are also a large number of catholics who are also practicing buddhists, and they do not see a problem with this.
There are significant differences between catholicism and Gaudiya Vaisnavism. In catholicism, although being a saint is the prayojana, you can achieve this if you truly confess your sins and are absolved right before you die. The catholic church officially rejects karma and reincarnation, as Guru Maharaja points out. The church also believes that only human beings have souls, and that we are allowed to utilize animals and the environment as we see fit. Jesus is not Krsna, so the extent of his pastimes is comparatively quite limited. Catholics know nothing of Krsna's lilas with his family and friends, and would be horrified to learn of the rasa dance. My incomplete understanding is that vegetarian saints (there are a lot of religious orders that prohibit meat-eating) probably go to a Vaikuntha planet with Jesus as the presiding deity, and this fulfills their idea of heaven. I feel most catholics will be surprised to wake up in a new body because they didn't pay attention in their last life, although they won't remember it. The buddhists may find themselves merged into the Brahman effulgence.
In conclusion, I would agree that Protestantism is very static and superficial. I would argue, however, that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox traditions do allow for a greater degree of innovation and philosophical development. It is not Gaudiya Vaisnavism however, due to major doctrinal differences and a lack of access to Krsna lila, and thus the extent of innovation is more limited.
Please forgive any of my offenses in writing this.
your humble servant
margaret
Prahlad Das - August 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Yamuna, I think you have done some not so fancy footwork in an attempt to place Christianity and Hinduism on equal lotus footing, but in doing so you have unwittingly portrayed Christianity as a tradition that is Vaisnavism on hold for imagined preaching purposes. Thus Christianity has been subsumed within Vaisnavism such that it no longer resembles itself. For example, the Hindu doctrines of karma and reincarnation are two of the main philosophical differences between the two traditions, differences that you have done away with. One wonders if you also make meat eating a mortal sin in your idea of Christianity, and if you do, how recognizable it will be by the Holy Fathers when you are finished.
I think the fact remains that Christianity is based upon an a particular interpretation of a single unverifiable historical event that one need believe in in order to be a member and attain salvation. Whereas Vedanta is based on a world of diverse spiritual experience that one is invited to enter into and experience for oneself. Thus we have seen in the course of history that the former tradition tends to be more static and superficial in terms of innovation, whereas the latter tends to foster more nuanced insights into the nature of transcendence. There is really no comparison between the differences found in say Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodox Catholicism with regard to their understanding of the nature of reality and transcendent possibilities and the differences we find between Sri Vaisnavism and Gaudiya Vaisnavism in this regard, what to speak of the differences between the paths of jnana and bhakti. I will leave it to others to go into further detail.
Perhaps this title should be ,"Comparing and Contrasting Eastern and Western Religions."
I've been in many discussions with devout Christians with regards to animal's souls, meat eating, karma, reincarnation, puja, and the sacredness of the Cow. There is a general shock by the Christian world that the Hindus view the Cow as sacred. They can't get over it. The fact that the Cow is completely giving, from her antiseptic urine and poison drawing dung to her life supporting milk isn't enough to enable the view of sanctity. There is a WORLD of difference between Vaishnavism and Christianity. When I made my statement, I didn't mean to subsume Christianity in Vaishnavism. In terms of comparisons, both have their root in faith. While Vaishnavism may have a more comprehensive philosophy to back it up, there are still followers of Christianity who can't change their perspective of who their deity of worship is. They may be getting some sort of ecstasy from their faith and their service there and it does little to try to their perspective. We may simply have to bow our heads to their faith and continue in our practice. This is why I used such an example of Sri Chaitanya and Murari Gupta. It was not to put Vaishnavism in Sri Chaitanya's place and Christianity in Murari Gupta's place, for Murari Gupta's faith in Ramachandra is in line with Vaishnavism. In hindsight it is definitely the wrong choice of an example, and I ask the forgiveness of the assembled Vaishnavas. Perhaps Chand Kazi is more appropriate. In this regard Mahaprabhu didn't ask him to give up his faith in Allah but to have a more encompassing view of Nature, from the unnecessary killing of animals (especially the Cow) to Hari Nam Sankirtan. Until Christianity can harmonize and accept these aspects of spirituality, ie. animal's souls, meat eating, karma, reincarnation, puja, sacredness of the Cow, Hari Nam Sankirtan, there remains much work to be done. For now, the contemporary society is dominated with Christian influence and its GENERAL lack of spiritual vision in the aforementioned terms.
Syamasundara - August 19, 2008 11:36 pm
I think the fact remains that Christianity is based upon an a particular interpretation of a single unverifiable historical event that one need believe in in order to be a member and attain salvation.
I wonder what that is, the crucifixion of Christ?
That's historical and documented by Romans, who had nothing to do with the whole scene. Pontius Pilatus is also a real person, there is a letter by him to another Roman, maybe the emperor, where he explains the situation in the Jewish province (Galilea?), and describes Jesus as a handsome man, with reddish hair and beard, and this halo about him.
Of course, what's not verifiable is that by being crucified, Jesus took away our sins.
I read a book called "Jesus lived and died in Kashmir." I won't get into the details, but that was quite something. It had proofs of Moses' and Jesus' tombs in some valley... anyway.
Swami - August 19, 2008 11:56 pm
I wonder what that is, the crucifixion of Christ?
More the resurrection.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 20, 2008 12:01 am
My incomplete understanding is that vegetarian saints (there are a lot of religious orders that prohibit meat-eating) probably go to a Vaikuntha planet with Jesus as the presiding deity
I am not sure that there is any direct link between meat eating and Vaikuntha. It is documented that animals were sometimes used even by rishis like Vishwamitra or kshatriyas like Bhima but that did not necessitate their going to bad hellish planets.
Not eating meat is conducive to spiritual upliftment of our consciousness and it is just a one of the rules of sadhana bhakti given for us by gosvamis.
Grant Upson - August 20, 2008 6:41 pm
I read a book called "Jesus lived and died in Kashmir."
There have been a bunch of books in that vein. Actually for over one-hundred years there have been attempts by persons of varied backgrounds (Hindus, Muslims, New-Agers) to establish that Jesus spent time in the Himalayas, either as a young man or following crucifixion (the “swoon theory” holds that Jesus merely appeared to die on the cross). As far as I’m aware, none of the “Jesus in India” texts have gained serious traction in scholarly circles. In fact, they have mostly garnered serious ridicule. (I won’t deny, however, that the idea of Jesus as a “yogi” is entertaining.) The earliest text in the milieu was called La vie inconnue de Jesus Christ. Allegedly based on primary source material from a Buddhist monastery in Ladakh, La vie inconnue was spectacularly discredited by the famous Indologist Max Muller.
Of course, judging the merits of “Jesus in India” theories by their tepid reception in Victorian (and now contemporary) academics could be construed as very narrow. Nevertheless, I believe that most of the theorists have not-so-fully veiled motivations for lobbying for a radical new take on the historical Jesus. This seriously damages their credibility. Depending upon the author, these motivations seem to include: 1) a wish to establish the supremacy of eastern/Indic thought following centuries of Christian/western intellectual and religious hegemony 2) a desire to prove that a common theistic or spiritual conception pervaded the ancient world 3) a personal need to reconcile adulthood faith in Indic or Vedic traditions with a residual, but very challenged faith in Jesus from childhood. (“Look, mom – they all came from the same source!”)
Of course, I embrace the spirit of “motivation #1” and agree with the ideal, but one needn’t re-imagine the biography of the historical Jesus in order to draw attention to the severely overlooked merits of the eastern paradigm.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 20, 2008 6:51 pm
There have been a bunch of books in that vein. Actually for over one-hundred years there have been attempts by persons of varied backgrounds (Hindus, Muslims, New-Agers) to establish that Jesus spent time in the Himalayas, either as a young man or following crucifixion (the “swoon theory” holds that Jesus merely appeared to die on the cross). As far as I’m aware, none of the “Jesus in India” texts have gained serious traction in scholarly circles. In fact, they have mostly garnered serious ridicule. (I won’t deny, however, that the idea of Jesus as a “yogi” is entertaining.) The earliest text in the milieu was called La vie inconnue de Jesus Christ. Allegedly based on primary source material from a Buddhist monastery in Ladakh, La vie inconnue was spectacularly discredited by the famous Indologist Max Muller.
Of course, judging the merits of “Jesus in India” theories by their tepid reception in Victorian (and now contemporary) academics could be construed as very narrow. Nevertheless, I believe that most of the theorists have not-so-fully veiled motivations for lobbying for a radical new take on the historical Jesus. This seriously damages their credibility. Depending upon the author, these motivations seem to include: 1) a wish to establish the supremacy of eastern/Indic thought following centuries of Christian/western intellectual and religious hegemony 2) a desire to prove that a common theistic or spiritual conception pervaded the ancient world 3) a personal need to reconcile adulthood faith in Indic or Vedic traditions with a residual, but very challenged faith in Jesus from childhood. (“Look, mom – they all came from the same source!”)
Of course, I embrace the spirit of “motivation #1” and agree with the ideal, but one needn’t re-imagine the biography of the historical Jesus in order to draw attention to the severely overlooked merits of the eastern paradigm.
But many books which were written on this topic were not by Indians.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 20, 2008 7:01 pm
More the resurrection.
I think as an objective person the insistence on accepting the divinity of Sri Chaitanya for GV is the same as resurrection for Christianity. The sukriti argument is given by sophisticated christians as well( they talk about piety instead of sukriti which makes one qualified to accept the event of resurrection).
Some people who I talk to like GV apart from the difficulty in embracing the divinity of Sri Chaitanya; I try to direct them to Nimbaraka's sampradaya. If I didn't meet GM or SSM then I would have gone there (ISKCON was not my cup of tea) as the philosophy of Nimbarka is very appealing and also very non-confrontationist(non evangelistic also) compared to other vaisnava sampradaya. And they do worship Radha and Krsna albeit in svakiya( But even some of Jiva Gosvami's disciples did that). And more importantly dvaita-advaita is very similar to acintya-abheda bheda tattva and nimbarka is very careful in bringing out the gradation of rasa and its richness and completeness in krsna lila without denoucing other philosophies(even jnana marga).
I think GV can learn from nimbarka's style a lot as it is very useful in modern times. The fact that Nimbarka's are not that popular because fo their non-evangelistic nature maybe something masses don't like as they find comfort in numbers. But it is appealing to sensitivites of people who have appreciation for subtleties.
All these are just my opinions so obviously others can disagree with me.
Bhrigu - August 20, 2008 7:35 pm
I agree with Grant on the "Jesus died in India" books and his analysis of some of the reasons behind them. I have read Kersten's book and found it very entertaining and interesting; however, the scholarship behind it is quite sloppy. There is a Finnish devotee who is heavily into this topic and he has tried to get me to help him "prove" it. Alas, he will have a hard time.
Swami - August 20, 2008 7:50 pm
I think as an objective person the insistence on accepting the divinity of Sri Chaitanya for GV is the same as resurrection for Christianity. The sukriti argument is given by sophisticated christians as well( they talk about piety instead of sukriti which makes one qualified to accept the event of resurrection).
Some people who I talk to like GV apart from the difficulty in embracing the divinity of Sri Chaitanya; I try to direct them to Nimbaraka's sampradaya. If I didn't meet GM or SSM then I would have gone there (ISKCON was not my cup of tea) as the philosophy of Nimbarka is very appealing and also very non-confrontationist(non evangelistic also) compared to other vaisnava sampradaya. And they do worship Radha and Krsna albeit in svakiya( But even some of Jiva Gosvami's disciples did that). And more importantly dvaita-advaita is very similar to acintya-abheda bheda tattva and nimbarka is very careful in bringing out the gradation of rasa and its richness and completeness in krsna lila without denoucing other philosophies(even jnana marga).
I think GV can learn from nimbarka's style a lot as it is very useful in modern times. The fact that Nimbarka's are not that popular because fo their non-evangelistic nature maybe something masses don't like as they find comfort in numbers. But it is appealing to sensitivites of people who have appreciation for subtleties.
All these are just my opinions so obviously others can disagree with me.
Is the objective person you speak of a Vedantist? If not, the same holds true for Krsna. If so, then scriptural support stands as proof that is at least credible if not convincing. Nimbarkas interpret krsna varnam tvisakrsnam . . . in one way, we another. Their interpretation is not more objective, accurate, or authoritative. I find it less credible.
Furthermore the divinity of Sri Caitanya has a form of Vedanta at its foundation. In other words the logical outcome of the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda is Sri Caitanya. He arises out of this ground. How can you compare this to believing in an event some people say happened 2000 years ago? Yes, 200 years later and ongoing Christians have developed a theology to support their story. So one has to compare their theology with Gaudiya theology/philosophy. Do you think the two objectively equal? I think one dwarfs the other.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 20, 2008 11:11 pm
Is the objective person you speak of a Vedantist? If not, the same holds true for Krsna. If so, then scriptural support stands as proof that is at least credible if not convincing. Nimbarkas interpret krsna varnam tvisakrsnam . . . in one way, we another. Their interpretation is not more objective, accurate, or authoritative. I find it less credible.
Furthermore the divinity of Sri Caitanya has a form of Vedanta at its foundation. In other words the logical outcome of the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda is Sri Caitanya. He arises out of this ground. How can you compare this to believing in an event some people say happened 2000 years ago? Yes, 200 years later and ongoing Christians have developed a theology to support their story. So one has to compare their theology with Gaudiya theology/philosophy. Do you think the two objectively equal? I think one dwarfs the other.
No I don't think they are equal or else I will be a Christian but I just said there are some necessary beliefs necessary to practice GV as there are for Christianity. For instance Gaur Purnima was celebrated much after the departure of Sri Chaitanya and similarly Gaur-nitai worship was developed much later. So we can compare it to Christian development after the Jesus' departure.
Swami - August 20, 2008 11:25 pm
No I don't think they are equal or else I will be a Christian but I just said there are some necessary beliefs necessary to practice GV as there are for Christianity. For instance Gaur Purnima was celebrated much after the departure of Sri Chaitanya and similarly Gaur-nitai worship was developed much later. So we can compare it to Christian development after the Jesus' departure.
Yes of course there are articles of faith in GV and it has been developed in terms of its philosophy and practices over the years. However the worship of Gaura Nitai was going on both in person and in Deity form during their manifest lila. Gauraidasa Pandit had installed Deities of Gaura Nitai at the time.
Yamuna Dasi - August 21, 2008 12:49 am
Yamuna, I think you have done some not so fancy footwork in an attempt to place Christianity and Hinduism on equal lotus footing, but in doing so you have unwittingly portrayed Christianity as a tradition that is Vaisnavism on hold for imagined preaching purposes. Thus Christianity has been subsumed within Vaisnavism such that it no longer resembles itself. For example, the Hindu doctrines of karma and reincarnation are two of the main philosophical differences between the two traditions, differences that you have done away with. One wonders if you also make meat eating a mortal sin in your idea of Christianity, and if you do, how recognizable it will be by the Holy Fathers when you are finished.
I think the fact remains that Christianity is based upon an a particular interpretation of a single unverifiable historical event that one need believe in in order to be a member and attain salvation. Whereas Vedanta is based on a world of diverse spiritual experience that one is invited to enter into and experience for oneself. Thus we have seen in the course of history that the former tradition tends to be more static and superficial in terms of innovation, whereas the latter tends to foster more nuanced insights into the nature of transcendence. There is really no comparison between the differences found in say Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodox Catholicism with regard to their understanding of the nature of reality and transcendent possibilities and the differences we find between Sri Vaisnavism and Gaudiya Vaisnavism in this regard, what to speak of the differences between the paths of jnana and bhakti. I will leave it to others to go into further detail.
Maharaj, why do you think that Christianity is based upon a particular interpretation of a single unverifiable event i.e. Christ’s resurrection? The life and teaching of Jesus as described in the New Testament have their own beauty and it stands for itself. For me the question if Jesus had resurrected from the dead is not having so much importance, because His teaching and personality is what impresses me most, and I suppose others too. Krishna did not have to "resurrect" to make the humanity be impressed by His teachings and lila, and still the humanity is impressed by them. The same is valid about Lord Chaitanya. Many can believe in Him as a saint, not necessarily as an incarnation of Krishna, but still follow and praise His teachings, since as far as I know He himself was trying to hide His own divinity and accepting it was not a requirement for a follower. Also Jesus did not require from His followers to accept His resurrection as a final proof for His words. His resurrection was a surprise for all His disciples, not something that they expected from Him or required it in order to follow Him.
We don't accept every wonder as a proof. Sai Baba is not impressing the humanity that much. But one's profound and wise words and pure life surely do.
I would follow my Gurudeva because He Himself impressed me so much by teaching and personal presence. He left this world and I don't require Him to resurrect in order to make me believe Him and follow Him.
I think that the beauty of a teaching and the holy presence of a pure person can stand for itself, and if it's signed by a life of complete dedication and surrender to the ideals - this is what matters.
Many people can tell me that Krishna is just a legendary person and so is His lila - just myths and legends. Some say so about Jesus too. Same arguments. I don't need much historical proofs for my faith and appreciation of their teachings. For me such historical proofs are very secondary. If I have to be objective, I cannot even give serious historical proofs for Krishna's existence and am not sure if I would even argue with someone who wants historical proofs. If someone claims that Krishna is just a legendary hero, I would just tell that person that if so, then this "legendary hero" must have been really VERY IMPRESSIVE to provoke so many pages being written about Him and that I know no other "legendary hero" with such a portfolio.
Regarding your point that "For example, the Hindu doctrines of karma and reincarnation are two of the main philosophical differences between the two traditions, differences that you have done away with." - I did not enter into details regarding the doctrines of karma and reincarnation, because it is obvious that Christianity and Hinduism do differ into this (I would not point out that some Christian Churches accept karma and reincarnation, I agree with you that most don’t). I personally of course accept the doctrine of karma and reincarnation, but I would follow the morals and ethics even if I would believe in "one life and then judgment", because for me morals and ethics also have beauty of their own which stands for itself. Also one can develop taste for spiritual life even if he/she believes in "one life, no more" and the urgency for reaching the spiritual goals could be even stronger.
Regarding your words "One wonders if you also make meat eating a mortal sin in your idea of Christianity, and if you do, how recognizable it will be by the Holy Fathers when you are finished" - it would be very hard for me to make meat eating a mortal sin knowing that Pandavas were eating meat. So if I recognize the Pandavas, why should I judge the Holy Fathers by different standards? Also many of the Holy Fathers were vegetarians, renounciates who lived on forest fruits and herbs, so who I am to judge them? Who am I also to judge the Pandavas if Krishna accepted them without remarks for their diet? (at least I don’t know of such)
Also I would not have any problem defending in front of any Christian the idea that the vegetarianism is a higher and better life standard also declared by the Bible - in both Old and New Testaments. It is pointed out as better, but not stressed as mandatory.
1.
Starting from the very first book of the Old Testament, its first chapter where is described that God created the man as vegetarian. So the natural food for the human being is vegetarian.
2.
Continuing through Daniel 1st chapter where is described the story of a practical experiment made and its result - that the 4 persons who were eating only vegetarian food and no meat, when examined after were better in any aspect:
"15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams."
It is completely obvious that God was very pleased by their vegetarian diet.
Their outstanding was obvious also even for the meat eating king:
"20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm."
3.
And last proof (in order not to bring more boredom to the devotees here) this time from the New Testament - Romans 14.21:
"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."
Here I gave only 3 quotes from both Old and New Testaments in support of vegetarianism, but there are more.
Vegetarian diet is part of the vows of the Russian Orthodox monks. Some Christian denominations are also vegetarian - like the Adventists for example.
If Jesus really did not stress non meat eating much to His disciples, I also don't find Krishna stressing this point to the Pandavas who were hunters and eating meat and were still His pure devotees. (I also heard that in Mathura dham and other places many vaishnavas eat fish.)
My main point finally is - can't we preach GV without the need to crucify Christianity or diminish the value of Christ and His life and teaching? Just to preach the glories of Krishna and bhakti yoga without making such a competition, by showing it's beauty and believing that beauty will finally save the world by charming it. I think that much more people will embrace the path of bhakti if we present it without the frame of this competition. Humanity loves or at least respects Jesus, so why do we have to preach on the basis of underestimating comparison of His teaching with bhakti yoga? Isn't it better to poit out the similarities rather then the differences to support our preaching?
I once heard a guru quoting even Nietzche's words "I could believe only in a God who dances" and finishing with - "that's Krishna!" and I believe he gave some sucriti to Nietsche by this merciful quote. Imagine how much easier would be to quote similarities in teaching quoting Christ rather than Nietsche.
Just pure positive affirming preaching, without competitive comparisons. If we do believe that Krishna is God Himself and Christ is a guru or a saint or a Son of God, then why should we compare them?
Yamuna Dasi - August 21, 2008 12:57 am
Nimbarkas interpret krsna varnam tvisakrsnam . . . in one way, we another. Their interpretation is not more objective, accurate, or authoritative. I find it less credible.
Excuse me Maharaj, but may I ask from where is this verse, what does it mean and what is the nimbarka's interpretation and what is that of GV? Sorry for being the only one in this forum who does not know it...
Yamuna Dasi - August 21, 2008 1:15 am
Furthermore the divinity of Sri Caitanya has a form of Vedanta at its foundation. In other words the logical outcome of the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda is Sri Caitanya. He arises out of this ground. How can you compare this to believing in an event some people say happened 2000 years ago? Yes, 200 years later and ongoing Christians have developed a theology to support their story. So one has to compare their theology with Gaudiya theology/philosophy. Do you think the two objectively equal? I think one dwarfs the other.
Maharaj, why do we have to give against Christianity arguments which can be 100 % given the same way against GV?
For example in this case it would sound like this:
"How can you compare Christ and His life and teaching to believing in events some people say happened 5000 years ago? Yes, later and ongoing Krishnaites have developed a theology to support their stories."
If we speak of interpolations in Christian scriptures, we have also to mention that such interpolations exist also in ours. Just for the sake of being objective.
And generally people already have so many doubts about anything and everything. Is it really a good idea at all to mention such doubts regarding the authenticity of the Scriptures and the theology in them? If we build our preaching on doubting the authenticity of their Scriptures, they will return with the same. What will be the result for the preaching in general? The faith of people in Scriptures will be diminished. Not a likeable result.
Yamuna Dasi - August 21, 2008 1:25 am
I think as an objective person the insistence on accepting the divinity of Sri Chaitanya for GV is the same as resurrection for Christianity. The sukriti argument is given by sophisticated christians as well( they talk about piety instead of sukriti which makes one qualified to accept the event of resurrection).
Some people who I talk to like GV apart from the difficulty in embracing the divinity of Sri Chaitanya; I try to direct them to Nimbaraka's sampradaya. If I didn't meet GM or SSM then I would have gone there (ISKCON was not my cup of tea) as the philosophy of Nimbarka is very appealing and also very non-confrontationist(non evangelistic also) compared to other vaisnava sampradaya. And they do worship Radha and Krsna albeit in svakiya( But even some of Jiva Gosvami's disciples did that). And more importantly dvaita-advaita is very similar to acintya-abheda bheda tattva and nimbarka is very careful in bringing out the gradation of rasa and its richness and completeness in krsna lila without denoucing other philosophies(even jnana marga).
I think GV can learn from nimbarka's style a lot as it is very useful in modern times. The fact that Nimbarka's are not that popular because fo their non-evangelistic nature maybe something masses don't like as they find comfort in numbers. But it is appealing to sensitivites of people who have appreciation for subtleties.
All these are just my opinions so obviously others can disagree with me.
Wow! I like very much what you wrote!
What I wrote above is exactly in this direction. Thank you for expressing it in better English than mine!
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 21, 2008 2:59 am
Yes of course there are articles of faith in GV and it has been developed in terms of its philosophy and practices over the years. However the worship of Gaura Nitai was going on both in person and in Deity form during their manifest lila. Gauraidasa Pandit had installed Deities of Gaura Nitai at the time.
The faith in krsna's divinity is accepted by a lot of yogis, jnanis and devotees but it is not true for sri chaitanya. For a Vaisnava school it is even harder to accept divinity of a person. For jnanis they accept divinity of everybody without problem because there philosophy insists on oneness. The problem happened with many saints in bengal claiming to be reincarnation of sri chaitanya. With the tendency of attributing divinity cheaply in Bengal(Ramakrishna etc also) many people have hesitation to easily accept all articles of faith in GV. But it boils down to sukriti which I said the Christians can also say.
Swami - August 21, 2008 3:46 am
Maharaj, why do we have to give against Christianity arguments which can be 100 % given the same way against GV?For example in this case it would sound like this:
"How can you compare Christ and His life and teaching to believing in events some people say happened 5000 years ago? Yes, later and ongoing Krishnaites have developed a theology to support their stories."
If we speak of interpolations in Christian scriptures, we have also to mention that such interpolations exist also in ours. Just for the sake of being objective.
And generally people already have so many doubts about anything and everything. Is it really a good idea at all to mention such doubts regarding the authenticity of the Scriptures and the theology in them? If we build our preaching on doubting the authenticity of their Scriptures, they will return with the same. What will be the result for the preaching in general? The faith of people in Scriptures will be diminished. Not a likeable result.
My words you cited above were in response to the argument that the divinity of Mahaprabhu is only as believable as the resurrection (as I read it). Someone could have said the same about Krsna instead of Mahaprabh and I would have responded differently. I do not necessarily think that the historicity of Krsna's earthly appearance, which is impossible to establish, need be an absolute tenant of our faith, and I have spoken on that at length elsewhere. Furthermore, I also wrote that either article of faith, the divinity of Mahaprabhu or the resurrection of Christ, are as believable as the philosophy that underlies them. Thus I did not leave it with the sentence you have cited above. So you have selectively quoted me and thus not done justice to my response to Garua Vijaya.
Yes, people are doubtful about spirituality and God, but in my opinion a good deal of that doubt comes from the lack of compelling theology and philosophy in Christianity, the most well funded and thus influential religion in the world today, as well as all forms of religious fundamentalism. I believe that Christianity has had its day in the world and it will only decline from here. Therefore I do not see any wisdom in aligning myself with it. I think it wiser to align myself with all forms of Vedanta and even Buddhism, if with anyone—with Eastern philosophy and its insight into the nature of consciousness. It seems to me that wiser Christians are acknowledging and even coming in the direction of Vedanta in order to gain intellectual credibility. Its future lies in aligning itself with Eastern philosophy, with the rational if you will of Vedanta's mysticism and away from Christianity's "belief." This will be a very different form of Christianity, one more like the one you have conjured up.
And you have done just that, conjured up your own idea of Christianity with your Biblical references, etc. that mean one thing to you due to your actual spiritual orientation and quite another thing to 99% of today's Christians. Is it even Christianity, with no need to believe in the resurrection? Do you realize how central this is to the faith? It seems not. Yes, Christians do need this miracle to believe. Many have come and taught well, inspired others, etc, but he alone, being the only son of God as the story goes, rose from the dead. It is just this central miracle that effectively sentenced all other so called miracles of pagan Europe to death. And in turn Christianity has tied to turn their miracle on every avatara and saint/Vedantists to say that that they are fraudulent. The problem for Christianity in this regard, however, is that India has always had philosophy and its own, well developed theologies, miracles, saints, morality, etc. It was not as ill equipped or spiritually impoverished to deal with Christian miracle marketing as pagan Europe. As Mark Twain put it, "In religion, India is the only millionaire."
And so we have the Christian West, strengthened by its wedding to modern science and the host of subsequent miracles this science has given birth to to make life more comfortable, which at least for a while lent credibility to Christianity. And then we have the East, about which the well known British historian Arnold Toynbee, said “It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way.”
Note this carefully: If Christ did not rise from the dead, he has very little to contribute to the religious world. Why, because there is nothing he said or did that others have not said or done. If he did not rise form the dead, how can one effectively reason he died for everyone's sins? If he did not rise there would be no Christianity. The resurrection is the central pillar of Christianity. And personally I don't believe it happened.
That does not mean that Christians have not contributed anything of value to the world. They have, and I appreciate their basic theism and many of the well though out Jesuit arguments, some Protestant arguments and insights, the courage of many early Christians and the lives of its saints. Where does all this good come from? In my opinion in comes from their sincerity, but not from their theology. God is accessible through this sincerity. However, the theological truth of the Godhead is in my opinion, however imperfectly, best explained in theistic Vedanta, and within that in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. And, my dear niece, that is why we are all here. Amen.
Yamuna Dasi - August 21, 2008 5:05 am
My words you cited above were in response to the argument that the divinity of Mahaprabhu is only as believable as the resurrection (as I read it). Someone could have said the same about Krsna instead of Mahaprabh and I would have responded differently. I do not necessarily think that the historicity of Krsna's earthly appearance, which is impossible to establish, need be an absolute tenant of our faith, and I have spoken on that at length elsewhere. Furthermore, I also wrote that either article of faith, the divinity of Mahaprabhu or the resurrection of Christ, are as believable as the philosophy that underlies them. Thus I did not leave it with the sentence you have cited above. So you have selectively quoted me and thus not done justice to my response to Garua Vijaya.
Yes, people are doubtful about spirituality and God, but in my opinion a good deal of that doubt comes from the lack of compelling theology and philosophy in Christianity, the most well funded and thus influential religion in the world today, as well as all forms of religious fundamentalism. I believe that Christianity has had its day in the world and it will only decline from here. Therefore I do not see any wisdom in aligning myself with it. I think it wiser to align myself with all forms of Vedanta and even Buddhism, if with anyone—with Eastern philosophy and its insight into the nature of consciousness. It seems to me that wiser Christians are acknowledging and even coming in the direction of Vedanta in order to gain intellectual credibility. Its future lies in aligning itself with Eastern philosophy, with the rational if you will of Vedanta's mysticism and away from Christianity's "belief." This will be a very different form of Christianity, one more like the one you have conjured up.
And you have done just that, conjured up your own idea of Christianity with your Biblical references, etc. that mean one thing to you due to your actual spiritual orientation and quite another thing to 99% of today's Christians. Is it even Christianity, with no need to believe in the resurrection? Do you realize how central this is to the faith? It seems not. Yes, Christians do need this miracle to believe. Many have come and taught well, inspired others, etc, but he alone, being the only son of God as the story goes, rose from the dead. It is just this central miracle that effectively sentenced all other so called miracles of pagan Europe to death. And in turn Christianity has tied to turn their miracle on every avatara and saint/Vedantists to say that that they are fraudulent. The problem for Christianity in this regard, however, is that India has always had philosophy and its own, well developed theologies, miracles, saints, morality, etc. It was not as ill equipped or spiritually impoverished to deal with Christian miracle marketing as pagan Europe. As Mark Twain put it, "In religion, India is the only millionaire."
And so we have the Christian West, strengthened by its wedding to modern science and the host of subsequent miracles this science has given birth to to make life more comfortable, which at least for a while lent credibility to Christianity. And then we have the East, about which the well known British historian Arnold Toynbee, said “It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way.”
Note this carefully: If Christ did not rise from the dead, he has very little to contribute to the religious world. Why, because there is nothing he said or did that others have not said or done. If he did not rise form the dead, how can one effectively reason he died for everyone's sins? If he did not rise there would be no Christianity. The resurrection is the central pillar of Christianity. And personally I don't believe it happened.
That does not mean that Christians have not contributed anything of value to the world. They have, and I appreciate their basic theism and many of the well though out Jesuit arguments, some Protestant arguments and insights, the courage of many early Christians and the lives of its saints. Where does all this good come from? In my opinion in comes from their sincerity, but not from their theology. God is accessible through this sincerity. However, the theological truth of the Godhead is in my opinion, however imperfectly, best explained in theistic Vedanta, and within that in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. And, my dear niece, that is why we are all here. Amen.
Maharaj, you cannot imagine how much joy to my heart you gave by considering and calling me your niece! You are much dearer to my heart than it might seem to the devotees in this forum reading my words of appreciation for Christ and Christianity. It cannot be but so in my case since my path passed through there before reaching GV and I cannot but be grateful. For me Jesus was preaching bhakti and was also giving to His disciples to taste it. Maybe it was vatsalya rasa (feeling God as their Father) or sakhya rasa or dasya… or a mixture… maybe even madhurya for some very special souls, since there are cases in Christianity where souls had feelings towards God as their Beloved. All “Song of the Songs” is into this erotic mood where the soul is the girl and God is it’s Beloved. Through the centuries there were many objections from inside the Church what is the place of this erotic poetry in the Bible and why should it at all be there, but the Holy Fathers and wise Christians had always been successful in defending it’s theology by explaining it as I mentioned. This is why I dare to say and hope that most probably souls have access to madhurya rasa even through Christianity.
There was an old Catholic nun flying next seat to me in the flight back from Peru to Bulgaria and we chatted a lot during the long trip. The long years of experienced service had given her this spark of purity in the eyes which one always feels so happy to meet. So among the many topics we spoke about it came also that of the living holy persons by me asking her if she had met such. She answered me “no, I didn’t meet such a person”, but then asked me if I did and I was so glad to tell her the good news that I did! Cannot imagine how impressed she was and then was asking me details about and her eyes were so shining in relishing the details. As a conclusion I told her: “could you imagine, Mothrer, how you would feel if you could personally be there among Christ’s disciples looking at Him and listening? This is what we feel when we are with our Spiritual Master! It’s an unbeatable personal experience one can pray for!” I’ve seen it in her eyes Maharaj how thirsty she was for this and how happy that such an option exists… and in that moment I thought how fortunate we all are and how rare is what we had been given…
Yes Maharaj, my dear dear Spiritual Uncle, you are so right, that is why we are all here. Gurudeva ki jay!
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - August 21, 2008 6:51 am
I think it wiser to align myself with all forms of Vedanta and even Buddhism, if with anyone—with Eastern philosophy and its insight into the nature of consciousness.
Dear Swami, I have to say that I have big difficulty with accepting this statement. To me monotheistic religion with the stress on the personal aspect of God must be better then buddhist or impersonal vedantist school which denies God qualities or even His existence like the buddhists do. Even if christianity doesn't acknowledge karma or reincarnation still it does acknowledge the person of God, and this faith itself might in some way (trough Paramatma in heart?) elevate beliver even to the stage of love of God, or at least let him continue his search for God in next life, while buddhist, who denies God seems to be on the much lower position even if he believes in reincarnation and karma.
This may seem to be purely theoretical but we've got records of christian saints (I don't know about saints in other monotheistic religions) who exhibited ecstatic symptoms, that look like symptoms of spiritual advancment. I am not talking only about levitation, reading minds, healing, but about the the stuff like , what they describe as melting of heart in love of God, uncontrollable crying, visions etc. I am not expert on that, I would have to do some researches, but my main idea is based on the assumption that believe in personal God has more value (even if bereft of strong philosofical bases) then accepting idea of karma or reincarnation, but rejecting God.
I hope I haven't make fool of myself with this post, I just want to understand it deeper and I am open for correction if you want to elaborate on this topic Maharaja (or anyone else).
Swami - August 21, 2008 12:05 pm
Dear Swami, I have to say that I have big difficulty with accepting this statement. To me monotheistic religion with the stress on the personal aspect of God must be better then buddhist or impersonal vedantist school which denies God qualities or even His existence like the buddhists do. Even if christianity doesn't acknowledge karma or reincarnation still it does acknowledge the person of God, and this faith itself might in some way (trough Paramatma in heart?) elevate beliver even to the stage of love of God, or at least let him continue his search for God in next life, while buddhist, who denies God seems to be on the much lower position even if he believes in reincarnation and karma.This may seem to be purely theoretical but we've got records of christian saints (I don't know about saints in other monotheistic religions) who exhibited ecstatic symptoms, that look like symptoms of spiritual advancment. I am not talking only about levitation, reading minds, healing, but about the the stuff like , what they describe as melting of heart in love of God, uncontrollable crying, visions etc. I am not expert on that, I would have to do some researches, but my main idea is based on the assumption that believe in personal God has more value (even if bereft of strong philosofical bases) then accepting idea of karma or reincarnation, but rejecting God.
I hope I haven't make fool of myself with this post, I just want to understand it deeper and I am open for correction if you want to elaborate on this topic Maharaja (or anyone else).
Yes, some devotees have an attachment to Christianity, mostly Catholicism. I was raised Catholic myself, and maong the various branches of Christianity I have more sympathy for Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, which has been more innovative over the centuries. Still I have no particular attachment to it.
My point is that in today's world among progressive people Eastern spirituality, yoga, etc. is more credible than Christianaity and the future lies with such people. This is my opinion. Nor do I find the end of Christianity clearly personal, a faceless God, the beatific vision, etc. differ little from the ideas of some Eastern forms of spirituality. The symptoms of the Christian saints can also be found in yogis, jnanis and even Buddhits.
Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja has said,
So, even in the midst of the infinite Brahman effulgence, some souls are coming out. It is a question of infinity, so the position of Jesus may be considered as eternal, and the time may come when Jesus himself may be converted into Vaisnavism. It is not impossible.
Jesus: Dynamic or Static?
Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Krsna as the Personality of Godhead?
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: When his inner attainment is most closely detected, then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some possibility of his achieving Krsna.
Christian: I don't understand.
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Is Jesus stagnant or progressive? Where he has reached, is that finished forever, or is he dynamic?
Christian: Christians will say that he has full knowledge.
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: So, is he stagnant there, finally fixed? Is that Jesus' position? Do the bishops say that his position is final? Does he have a progressive life? Or is Jesus alone barred from making further progress?
At any rate, I am tired of talking about Christianity and my thoughts on it can be found in other threads. Perhaps those interested can research them.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 21, 2008 12:39 pm
Yes, some devotees have an attachment to Christianity, mostly Catholicism. I was raised Catholic myself, and maong the various branches of Christianity I have more sympathy for Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, which has been more innovative over the centuries. Still I have no particular attachment to it.
My point is that in today's world among progressive people Eastern spirituality, yoga, etc. is more credible than Christianaity and the future lies with such people. This is my opinion. Nor do I find the end of Christianity clearly personal, a faceless God, the beatific vision, etc. differ little from the ideas of some Eastern forms of spirituality. The symptoms of the Christian saints can also be found in yogis, jnanis and even Buddhits.
Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja has said,
So, even in the midst of the infinite Brahman effulgence, some souls are coming out. It is a question of infinity, so the position of Jesus may be considered as eternal, and the time may come when Jesus himself may be converted into Vaisnavism. It is not impossible.
Jesus: Dynamic or Static?
Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Krsna as the Personality of Godhead?
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: When his inner attainment is most closely detected, then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some possibility of his achieving Krsna.
Christian: I don't understand.
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Is Jesus stagnant or progressive? Where he has reached, is that finished forever, or is he dynamic?
Christian: Christians will say that he has full knowledge.
Srila Sridhara Maharaja: So, is he stagnant there, finally fixed? Is that Jesus' position? Do the bishops say that his position is final? Does he have a progressive life? Or is Jesus alone barred from making further progress?
At any rate, I am tired of talking about Christianity and my thoughts on it can be found in other threads. Perhaps those interested can research them.
I agree with you GM . In Today's time it is better to align with Eastern religions though we can have some sympathy for Christianity
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - August 21, 2008 1:30 pm
The fact that I am Polish doesn't mean that automatically I have affinity for christianity . I don't. Personally I was always rather repulsed by catholic grandeur and dogmatism. I just fail to understand how atheistic tradition (like buddhism), even presenting deeper knowledge about material world (karma, reincarnation) can be better then theistic tradition like christianity, that doesn't have strong, philosophical foundation but nonetheless teaches about the love of personal God.
Any way I respect fact that Maharaja doesn't wish to continue to discuss this topic, and this is not essential to me neither, I find GV discussions much more enlightening.
Swami - August 21, 2008 1:51 pm
Let me say this about where the thinking world is going. It is going in the direction of understanding consciousness. This is the final frontier, to which there is no end. Science, philosophy, and religion meet here, and it is here that Vedanta has much to say, not Christianity. Modern science was born Christian then it left the faith and became agnostic and atheistic. If it is to return to its religious roots, it will become a Vedantin and the world along with it. Furthermore, because the dominant world religions are primarily devotionally oriented, there is good scope for this Vedantin to eventually become a Gaudiya Vedantin.
From Descartes dualism, to Chalmers's property dualism to Dennets functional monism and everywhere in between consciousness remains a mystery. Vedanta in all of its forms has something to add to this discussion. Christianity on the other hand has little to add, being stuck as it is in Cartesian dualism at best with no clear idea of the soul.
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - August 21, 2008 2:29 pm
Let me say this about where the thinking world is going. It is going in the direction of understanding consciousness. This is the final frontier, to which there is no end. Science, philosophy, and religion meet here, and it is here that Vedanta has much to say, not Christianity. Modern science was born Christian then it left the faith and became agnostic and atheistic. If it is to return to its religious roots, it will become a Vedantin and the world along with it. Furthermore, because the dominant world religions are primarily devotionally oriented, there is good scope for this Vedantin to eventually become a Gaudiya Vedantin.
From Descartes dualism, to Chalmers's property dualism to Dennets functional monism and everywhere in between consciousness remains a mystery. Vedanta in all of its forms has something to add to this discussion. Christianity on the other hand has little to add, being stuck as it is in Cartesian dualism at best with no clear idea of the soul.
I think I am starting to grasp your idea Maharaja. You are saying that modern world can appreciate vedanta or buddhism more, because of it making sense in opposition to christianity, that trough the centuries lost its credibility and philosophical depth and doesn't attract intelligent and reasonable class of people any more. I have to switch from looking at this from the point of view of the individual practitioner into the broader view (seeing the difference in the impact the particular school of thoughts can have on the world).
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 22, 2008 2:54 am
I was hearing one of SSM's lecture where he was saying that faith in Sri Gauranga is very rare as he is less universally accepted(through sastric evidence or otherwise) than
Sri Krsna but one who has faith in Sri Gauranga's supremacy is very fortunate and success is assured for him.
It was just the same point I was making before.
Swami - August 22, 2008 3:20 am
I was hearing one of SSM's lecture where he was saying that faith in Sri Gauranga is very rare as he is less universally accepted(through sastric evidence or otherwise) thanSri Krsna but one who has faith in Sri Gauranga's supremacy is very fortunate and success is assured for him.
It was just the same point I was making before.
Yes, but it is also important to consider the extent to which Sri Caitanya makes Krsna believable. Yogis, jnanis, etc. who more readily acknowledge the divinity of Krsna than that of Mahaprabhu are not the future. Who will modern people look to, or from whom will they most readily come to consider the divinity of Krsna in all of his glory? Mahaprabhu is an historical person, and one of an extraordinary history. Point the world in his direction and you point them to Krsna in depth. In one sense Krsna is a story, whose history is questionable to the objective Western mind. Gaura is a "real" person absorbed in Krsna like no other. Where does he come from? If you study him you find he comes out of Krsna lila. Someone must emerge from there. Krsna must emerge from there in some form other then Syamarupa if he is to taste Radha's love. If you accept the divinity of Krsna you have good reason to accept the divinity of Gaura. And those who doubt Krsna in terms of his being a real person (the majority), point them to Gaura and show them what Krsna can do to someone. Their doubts will go away. Garua is Krsna. Don't hide this. Don't doubt this. Put Garua in the center where he belongs. Worship Gaura and you will understand all these things in a way that will be contagious. Garua Vijaya!
Prahlad Das - August 22, 2008 3:55 am
Yes, but it is also important to consider the extent to which Sri Caitanya makes Krsna believable. Yogis, jnanis, etc. who more readily acknowledge the divinity of Krsna than that of Mahaprabhu are not the future. Who will modern people look to, or from whom will they most readily come to consider the divinity of Krsna in all of his glory? Mahaprabhu is an historical person, and one of an extraordinary history. Point the world in his direction and you point them to Krsna in depth. In one sense Krsna is a story, whose history is questionable to the objective Western mind. Gaura is a "real" person absorbed in Krsna like no other. Where does he come from? If you study him you find he comes out of Krsna lila. Someone must emerge from there. Krsna must emerge from there in some form other then Syamarupa if he is to taste Radha's love. If you accept the divinity of Krsna you have good reason to accept the divinity of Gaura. And those who doubt Krsna in terms of his being a real person (the majority), point them to Gaura and show them what Krsna can do to someone. Their doubts will go away. Garua is Krsna. Don't hide this. Don't doubt this. Put Garua in the center where he belongs. Worship Gaura and you will understand all these things in a way that will be contagious. Garua Vijaya!
Please can you discuss a little about the nature of Faith
Yamuna Dasi - August 22, 2008 10:30 am
Yes, but it is also important to consider the extent to which Sri Caitanya makes Krsna believable. Yogis, jnanis, etc. who more readily acknowledge the divinity of Krsna than that of Mahaprabhu are not the future. Who will modern people look to, or from whom will they most readily come to consider the divinity of Krsna in all of his glory? Mahaprabhu is an historical person, and one of an extraordinary history. Point the world in his direction and you point them to Krsna in depth. In one sense Krsna is a story, whose history is questionable to the objective Western mind. Gaura is a "real" person absorbed in Krsna like no other. Where does he come from? If you study him you find he comes out of Krsna lila. Someone must emerge from there. Krsna must emerge from there in some form other then Syamarupa if he is to taste Radha's love. If you accept the divinity of Krsna you have good reason to accept the divinity of Gaura. And those who doubt Krsna in terms of his being a real person (the majority), point them to Gaura and show them what Krsna can do to someone. Their doubts will go away. Garua is Krsna. Don't hide this. Don't doubt this. Put Garua in the center where he belongs. Worship Gaura and you will understand all these things in a way that will be contagious. Garua Vijaya!
Thank you, Maharaj! Now I see your point much more clearly. Somehow I also have the tendency of preferring Krishna lila much more over Gaura lila. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was so strict regarding women and sometimes I was feeling that if so then no much place for me in this. If I am not alowed to approach a Guru enough for having a close personal relation with him, it's really hard and nearly impossible for me to follow, even if he is great. Same is till now my deeper feeling for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Even though I was given the mercy and the chance to serve in Bulgaria Gaura-Nitay deities, the personal ones of my Gurudeva, actually it was more dear to me that they were the deities of my Gurudeva, rather than the deities themselves. And after one year of being the person responsible for them, having a very non-demanding standart to worship them (just one offering per day and not at a strict hour, but any time), then after an year when it happened so that one day I did not offer them anything, when I approached the altar with a tray to offer the next day, the deities have gone... :He He: They were just not there on the altar and even till now I have no idea what happened and how. But Mahaprabhu did break my heart with this, showing me quite clearly that deities are free and not obliged to bare my service if it is not offered from the depth of my heart. No matter if they have disappeared completely mystically or through somebody who had taken them, the message still stands.
But unfortunately my heart still did not reach a very high temperature towards Mahaprabhu and I can just hope that some day by the mercy of the devotees this can happen. Who knows, maybe His way towards me is the heartbreaking one... special method for especially extra hard stones.
Actually I was very charmed when Sadhu Maharaj told us a story about Mahaprabhu how much he was loving His wife Vishnupriya, that He was dressing Her with His own hands and also personally making her make-up. This was very impressive for me, but still I know this is not what generally is told and preached about Him... I still have no idea from where did Sadhu Maharaj know this story about Mahaprabhu...
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 23, 2008 8:12 pm
Thank you GM. One question which has been asked to me sometimes is whether Sri Chaitanya,Nityananda Prabhu and Advaita Acarya come in sadhaka deha bodies or they come in self bodies like Sri Krsna.