Tattva-viveka
Christianity and Bhakti; The possibility of Christian influence on Ramanujacharya
Bryan - February 26, 2013 4:31 pm
Srila Prabhupada: "Actually, it doesn't matter — Krishna or Christ — the name is the same."
Can one dovetail/equate (genuine) Christian practice with Bhakti?
Is it true Christian presence in Medieval India influenced Ramanujacharya's theological outlook? If so, to what extent? Discuss.
Pranams,
Bryan
Gauravani Dasa - February 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Srila Prabhupada: "Actually, it doesn't matter — Krishna or Christ — the name is the same."
Can one dovetail/equate (genuine) Christian practice with Bhakti?
Is it true Christian presence in Medieval India influenced Ramanujacharya's theological outlook? If so, to what extent? Discuss.
Dandavats Bryan,
Due to Christianity's vague conception of God, I think it is hard to make the case that their practices could be considered bhakti. It is difficult to have deep love and devotion for someone about whom little is known.
In addition, Christianity makes no practical distinction between matter and spirit. Some Vedanta-like conclusions could be drawn-out from Christ's words but if you look at his teachings closely, much of what he says is very simple and, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring the people of that time and place into a culture of sattva. Srila Prabhupada once remarked, "Now we can just imagine what kind of people he had to deal with, that his commandment is 'Thou shall not kill.' Then understand how much they were accustomed to killing. So what kind of men they were? And not only that, in spite of hearing his instruction 'Thou shall not kill,' they killed him first. So what kind of men they were, just imagine."
Christ also emphasized seeing God in the poor: "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:31-46). Those Christians that have taken this idea of sacrifice seriously are very much influenced by sattva guna. However, until there is some idea about God's transcendental nama, rupa, and lila, there is little room for bhakti proper.
I don't know a lot about the Sri Ramanujacharya's Sri Sampradaya, but they do have Visnu nama and rupa at the center of their practice, so it is doubtful how much Christianity influenced them. At the same time, you might find the teachings of various Vaisnavas similar to what Christ taught, but that mostly depends on the audience--in other words, if the audience is the same, a Vaisnava and Christ might sound similar.
Bryan - February 26, 2013 7:17 pm
Thank you for your response, Gauravani.
I am not an expert in Christian theology. But I don't think it fair to say the Christian concept of (the triune) God is vague. Christians are personalists in the sense that they take Jesus Christ (both God and man -- and also a historical person) to be God. The Holy Spirit might equate to the impersonal Paramatma. I have heard some devotees stipulate God the Father could be Brahma(or even, dare I say, Krishna?). But, as you say, this isn't wholly explicated in texts like the Bible (particularly the Gospels).
I've also heard many times from learned devotees that Christ's advent on Earth (like all incarnations) was to help a particular society/culture at a particular time, to establish god consciousness etc.
The quote you include from Srila Prabhupada confuses me more, to be totally honest. Aren't Ksatriyas born and bred to kill? Isn't this their sanctioned duty by God?
I think it unfair you call Christ's teachings simplistic. For 2,000 years scholars and theologians have meditated, puzzled out, expounded on the Gospels. For so many more millenia, the Hebrew Bible (old testament).
There is some scholarship (albeit limited and rare) on the potential influence of Christian thought on Ramanujacharya. I am ignorant in this respect, thus my presenting such a question. We see later that Caitanya Mahaprabhu lived a life in an India swirling with myriad theologies. One (or more?) of his disciples were indeed Muslims who converted. A big portion of the subcontinent was under Mughal (i.e. Muslim) rule.
Also, Roman Catholics consider India an apostolic state. That means, according to their tradition, Christianity in India was established by a direct disciple of Christ (Saint Thomas). Accordingly, there has been a Christian theological presence in India (however small) for nearly 1500 years before Lord Caitanya appeared on the planet. Saint Thomas is entombed somewhere in India. From what I understand, India has always been a place of inclusive, dialogue-making theologians/saints/etc. (except perhaps under the rule of a few notorious, hard-line Mughal emperors), so this leads me to think Ramanujacharya possibly engaged with Christians. I can't say why I am so adamantly interested in following such a lead, just that it's stimulating to me.
Please forgive my ignorance in every respect. I deeply appreciate the conversation. Bit of a contrarian by nature here, so please forgive me if I seem confrontational.
Dandavats Bryan,
Due to Christianity's vague conception of God, I think it is hard to make the case that their practices could be considered bhakti. It is difficult to have deep love and devotion for someone about whom little is known.
In addition, Christianity makes no practical distinction between matter and spirit. Some Vedanta-like conclusions could be drawn-out from Christ's words but if you look at his teachings closely, much of what he says is very simple and, in my opinion, was an attempt to bring the people of that time and place into a culture of sattva. Srila Prabhupada once remarked, "Now we can just imagine what kind of people he had to deal with, that his commandment is 'Thou shall not kill.' Then understand how much they were accustomed to killing. So what kind of men they were? And not only that, in spite of hearing his instruction 'Thou shall not kill,' they killed him first. So what kind of men they were, just imagine."
Christ also emphasized seeing God in the poor: "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:31-46). Those Christians that have taken this idea of sacrifice seriously are very much influenced by sattva guna. However, until there is some idea about God's transcendental nama, rupa, and lila, there is little room for bhakti proper.
I don't know a lot about the Sri Ramanujacharya's Sri Sampradaya, but they do have Visnu nama and rupa at the center of their practice, so it is doubtful how much Christianity influenced them. At the same time, you might find the teachings of various Vaisnavas similar to what Christ taught, but that mostly depends on the audience--in other words, if the audience is the same, a Vaisnava and Christ might sound similar.
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 26, 2013 7:46 pm
I know nothing about influence of Christianity on Ramanuja but it is interesting that this topic kinda started to surface at the same time for different people. About one week ago one Christian guy on FB invited me to discussion (sorry, in Polish only) and he claims that acintya bheda abheda philosophy was taken by Gaudiyas from Christianity. 
He also thinks that chanting of God`s names came to India from ancient Christians.
I don`t think he understands the concept and I`m trying to clarify it to him to the extend i understand it 
. But it is a really interesting discussion and in fact his conception of salvation is pretty much like Vaisnava`s have- one becomes one with God in sense of serving him and doing only his will. Hmm, maybe it`s time for him to become Krishna`s devotee?
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 26, 2013 8:08 pm
Dandavats Bryan,
Due to Christianity's vague conception of God, I think it is hard to make the case that their practices could be considered bhakti. It is difficult to have deep love and devotion for someone about whom little is known.
Of course, they are bhakti. It is perhaps mostly not pure bhakti, but devotion is there.
Christ also emphasized seeing God in the poor: "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:31-46). Those Christians that have taken this idea of sacrifice seriously are very much influenced by sattva guna. However, until there is some idea about God's transcendental nama, rupa, and lila, there is little room for bhakti proper.
Well, if you look closely you will find these things in christianity to some extend. Of course they think Christ is God so they chant his name, only Jehova witnesses chant the name of God the Father which is not really his name. They have some kind of "guna kirtans" glorifying Christ`s qualities. There maybe not much about rupa and lila but not much does not mean nothing. There are descriptions of Christ and his activities, family and associates. They don`t have that many details as Krishna lila but still enought to meditate about.
It is little bit more complicated with God the Father. Christians usually depict him as old man with long beard. The only humanlike description of him can be found in Song of songs and... it sounds practically like description of parakiya 
Christian scholars have hard time with this text and they made extremally weird explanations to prevent people from thinking God can really have sex life 
Holy Spirit is probably less thought about and less worshipped and I guess, misunderstood. In original text he is... she! Christians made her male due to mistranslations.
I think I heard Guru Maharaja saying that probably some sincere Christians can attain Brahman and this is not possible without some bhakti.
Bryan - February 26, 2013 8:13 pm
Gauravani, an addendum:
Re: The killing of Christ: Perhaps we can generalize and simply say demons killed Christ. Just like the demon, Kamsa, tried so hard to kill Krsna. Ultimately, Jesus resurrected and defied "death" (a term, within the context of Christian theology, I do not firmly understand). Krsna was never defeated by "death," because, as we all know he (in one form or another) controls everything. However, I may remind you I am not at all expert in either theology.
Braj: I remember reading a Bishop, or some similar figure of authority, of a branch of Orthodox Christianity (Ukrainian, I think) relished chanting the maha mantra. (this was featured on krishna.com some time ago)
Are there any stories in Caitanya Lila that include Christians? I make the assumption that Christians may have helped heal Plague victims in some places on the subcontinent during the late medieval period.
Braja-sundari Dasi - February 26, 2013 8:13 pm
One of my point in discussion with the Christian was that their succesion is broken (he was complaining that Gaudiya Vaisnavas say Christians cannot attain God) and therefore it is difficult to find real teachings of Christ and how can you attain something without knowing what it is. His response was that Christ comes and reveals the truth to chosen people who share it with others. And of course he opinted out that our disciplic succesion is suspicious as well 
Gauravani Dasa - February 26, 2013 8:21 pm
I am not an expert in Christian theology. But I don't think it fair to say the Christian concept of (the triune) God is vague. Christians are personalists in the sense that they take Jesus Christ (both God and man -- and also a historical person) to be God. The Holy Spirit might equate to the impersonal Paramatma. I have heard some devotees stipulate God the Father could be Brahma(or even, dare I say, Krishna?). But, as you say, this isn't wholly explicated in texts like the Bible (particularly the Gospels).
Bryan, I'm not an expert either, but I'm married to a Christian minister with an M.Div from Duke University, so we talk about these subjects a lot 
There is debate in Christianity over the conception of the Trinity (hypostases) because the doctrine is not explicit in the Biblical scripture, hence the existence of (relatively small) Unitarian denominations. The doctrine of the Trinity states that Father, Son, and Spirit are three persons with the same substance. The nature of that substance is deemed a mystery. Also, why limit God's manifestations to a total of 3? In addition, the translation of the Greek word for "son" (pais) could also be translated as "servant." Read the New Testament with that alternative translation in mind
It is difficult to talk about these and other topics because there is scant and conflicting support for them in the Biblical scripture. Much of it has been reasoned about through the Ecumenical Councils, which often bring up more questions than answers. In my opinion, it is better to consult the writings of the Christians mystics on these subjects. You won't find any emphasis on mystic experience in mainline Protestantism--most is present in the Eastern Orthodox tradition (which only accepts the first 7 Ecumenical Councils).
The quote you include from Srila Prabhupada confuses me more, to be totally honest. Aren't Ksatriyas born and bred to kill? Isn't this their sanctioned duty by God?
There are several references in the Vaisnava scripture that everyone in Kali-yuga is a sudra. The classical system of varnasarma does not exist now as it did in ancient India. Even if we assume that there were genuine ksatriyas with Christ, he still discouraged killing, so they must have been indiscriminate enough to warrant the teaching.
I think it unfair you call Christ's teachings simplistic. For 2,000 years scholars and theologians have meditated, puzzled out, expounded on the Gospels. For so many more millenia, the Hebrew Bible (old testament).
My wife thinks so too! However, my point is that Christ taught simply because of his audience, not because he wasn't an advanced devotee of the Lord. In addition, much of the cultural details of the Bible can be called in question due to the advancement of science which also supports the argument that the audience was simple. Objectively speaking, the depth of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is greater than Christianity's simply due to the quantity and depth of relationships with the Lord. Vedanata philosophy is capable of interfacing with science on the unanswered questions about consciousness--Christianity has nothing to say on the subject.
I am contrarian too so I think we'll get along just fine
Swami - February 26, 2013 9:23 pm
What evidence is there that Sri Vaisnavism was influenced by Christianity? If we could look at the evidence that is thought by some to suggest that influence, we would be in a better position to discuss the issue. But it seems very doubtful, and one could argue to the contrary. Similar doctrines are shared by both sects, but where is the historical connection to suggest one borrowed from the other? Yes, St. Thomas came to India, but his influence is minuscule compared to other religious influences. Mahaprabhu travelled throughout the South and Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja portrays him as converting members every sect he met, other Vaisnava sects, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. with no mention of Christianity. On the other hand the Greek connection with India is well known and it includes conversions to Hinduism and the worship of Krsna. Later Christianity was influenced by the Greeks. Indeed, the Catholic "soul" is either Platonic (sattvic) one or an Aristotelian (rajasic) one. It is not explained in the Bible, which is more a book about belief, while the Gita is more a book on the nature of being with some believing relative to the nature of being described.
Bryan - February 26, 2013 10:34 pm
In a limited way (in part limited due to an incomplete and/or non-existent archival record) we might tease out potential influential strains of thought on Ramanuja by contemporary Christians in India. Such an exercise would be based on collecting evidence by inference through critical, comparative analysis of extant texts. However, there is probably not much of a point to this outside an academic setting. We know for a fact Vaisnav theology is much, much older than the oldest Christian doctrines. Ancient Vedic influence on the Fathers of the Church (Christ himself maybe, perhaps in India as some suggest) seems likely to me. But Christian influence on a subcontinent's brightest thinkers/saints doesn't seem far fetched.
Perhaps there's not much of a point to go down the rabbit hole on this from the spiritual perspective.
Maharaj, I would be interested to read your thoughts on the above quote by Srila Prabhupada. Please forgive me if you have already addressed the quote, as I know it is quite well-known and featured in introductory texts published by the BBT.
Much of the eastern roman empire (i.e. the greek world>byzantine world) quickly converted to Christianity. Perhaps the old Greek Roads to the subcontinent maintained a tenuous pulse throughout the centuries. Just thinking aloud here.
I suppose a simple thesis rolling in my head is: why west/east? why christian/vaisnava? the linguistic or sociocultural divisions in place that separates the sects of the world are false in the grand scheme. The Vedic histories explain the world was once controlled by a central, authorial empire. Now in Kali Yug there is so much division and exclusivity. If Lord Caitanya's golden age is indeed taking place, how will the world's Christians (including 1.7 billion catholics) reconcile with the rise of Gaudiya Vaisnavism?
Please pardon my convoluted thoughts.
What evidence is there that Sri Vaisnavism was influenced by Christianity? If we could look at the evidence that is thought by some to suggest that influence, we would be in a better position to discuss the issue. But it seems very doubtful, and one could argue to the contrary. Similar doctrines are shared by both sects, but where is the historical connection to suggest one borrowed from the other? Yes, St. Thomas came to India, but his influence is minuscule compared to other religious influences. Mahaprabhu travelled throughout the South and Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja portrays him as converting members every sect he met, other Vaisnava sects, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. with no mention of Christianity. On the other hand the Greek connection with India is well known and it includes conversions to Hinduism and the worship of Krsna. Later Christianity was influenced by the Greeks. Indeed, the Catholic "soul" is either Platonic (sattvic) one or an Aristotelian (rajasic) one. It is not explained in the Bible, which is more a book about belief, while the Gita is more a book on the nature of being with some believing relative to the nature of being described.
Dulal Chandra Dasa - February 27, 2013 5:35 pm
Perhaps there's not much of a point to go down the rabbit hole on this from the spiritual perspective.
Although there are certainly Christian mystics who have progressed in their devotional service to the platform of spiritual revelation, their experiences remain relatively hidden from humanity at large. Vaisnava mystics, on the other hand, have written extensively detailed accounts not only of their revelations, but also practical guides that allow others to follow in their footsteps. Even if through historical research shows a drop of evidence of Christian influence in Vedic thought, it would pale in comparison to the flood of transcendental knowledge raining down on modern humanity in the wake of Lord Caitanya's advent and the unlimited unpacking of his teachings by his direct associates (primarily the Goswami's) and those coming in their wake.
Bhrigu - February 27, 2013 5:44 pm
Some scholars claim Madhva was influenced by Syrian Christians in India (e.g. his doctrine of eternal damnation, salvation only through the intercession of Mukhya Prana, etc), but even there I haven't seen any conclusive proof. As with Ramanuja, I think it would be much harder still to find a Christian influence. In the 11th or 13th century there were Christians in the South, yes, but their influence was very small, compared to for example the Jains. Remember that nobody even bothers to address Christianity in polemic treatises -- they were basically seen as barbarians, whose best hope from an orthodox Hindu stance was getting a better birth in their next life. The inclusive nature that we today equate with Hinduism is a modern development, first found perhaps in the writings of Rammohan Roy in the early 19th century.
As far as I know, there are no encounters with Christians described in the biographies of Sri Caitanya.
But I agree that Christianity is certainly not simplistic when it comes to theology. There are many deep Christian thinkers of all kinds throughout the ages -- reading for example Schleiermacher is very interesting if one has read Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who mirrors some of his thoughts. From our perspective, they do not quite come up to the mark, but they work with very different presuppositions.
Bryan - February 27, 2013 8:59 pm
It is easy to establish the dominance of Vaisnav theology over Christianity in terms of sheer voluminosity.
It is another thing to fully grapple with Prabhupada telling us the name of Krsna and Christ are the same (non-different?). This isn't merely about etymology (as some like to make it so, end of story, etc). Devotees chant the maha mantra and believe the holy names to be nondifferent from Krishna (god) himself. Therefore, by Srila Prabhupada's quoted formula, the name of Jesus Christ is equally god. It follows that Christ is also god. Millions (innumerable, uncountable)names for god, right?
Perhaps this again betrays my simple mindedness and ignorance.
Although there are certainly Christian mystics who have progressed in their devotional service to the platform of spiritual revelation, their experiences remain relatively hidden from humanity at large. Vaisnava mystics, on the other hand, have written extensively detailed accounts not only of their revelations, but also practical guides that allow others to follow in their footsteps. Even if through historical research shows a drop of evidence of Christian influence in Vedic thought, it would pale in comparison to the flood of transcendental knowledge raining down on modern humanity in the wake of Lord Caitanya's advent and the unlimited unpacking of his teachings by his direct associates (primarily the Goswami's) and those coming in their wake.
Dulal Chandra Dasa - February 27, 2013 9:34 pm
But grapple we must, and in this and many other instances we must carefully take into consideration the broad approach Srila Prabhupada adopted as his preaching style. His desire to introduce Krishna and gain His acceptance by the western world led him to make many statements that seemed to contradict commonly held Gaudia Vaisnava thought and doctrine. Without full consideration of the audience and circumstance of such comments one can easily be confused, and can even arrive at conclusions that we not the intent of Srila Prabhupada's comments. In such instances careful consideration must be given to time, place and circumstance in order to place the proper level of pramana (evidencial importance) to such statements and place them in the proper context of the siddhanta of our parampara.
It is easy to establish the dominance of Vaisnav theology over Christianity in terms of sheer voluminosity.
It is another thing to fully grapple with Prabhupada telling us the name of Krsna and Christ are the same (non-different?). This isn't merely about etymology (as some like to make it so, end of story, etc). Devotees chant the maha mantra and believe the holy names to be nondifferent from Krishna (god) himself. Therefore, by Srila Prabhupada's quoted formula, the name of Jesus Christ is equally god. It follows that Christ is also god. Millions (innumerable, uncountable)names for god, right?
Perhaps this again betrays my simple mindedness and ignorance.
Dulal Chandra Dasa - February 27, 2013 11:18 pm
Sorry for the typo.
"Without full consideration of the audience and circumstance of such comments one can easily be confused, and can even arrive at conclusions that were not the intent of Srila Prabhupada's comments."
But grapple we must, and in this and many other instances we must carefully take into consideration the broad approach Srila Prabhupada adopted as his preaching style. His desire to introduce Krishna and gain His acceptance by the western world led him to make many statements that seemed to contradict commonly held Gaudia Vaisnava thought and doctrine. Without full consideration of the audience and circumstance of such comments one can easily be confused, and can even arrive at conclusions that we not the intent of Srila Prabhupada's comments. In such instances careful consideration must be given to time, place and circumstance in order to place the proper level of pramana (evidencial importance) to such statements and place them in the proper context of the siddhanta of our parampara.
Bryan - February 27, 2013 11:39 pm
With all due respect, Dulal Chandra, you addressed the content of the Prabhupada quote not at all.
However, I pretty much agree with the caveats you've listed. Western students seemingly have come a long way from the "Prabhupada says" days.
Sorry for the typo.
"Without full consideration of the audience and circumstance of such comments one can easily be confused, and can even arrive at conclusions that were not the intent of Srila Prabhupada's comments."
Swami - February 28, 2013 12:16 am
Prabhupada's statement is largely propaganda.
Where in the theology of nama dharma does the name "Christ" fit? When Mahaprabhu explained the meaning of Krsna nama he said "Yasondanandana, Sayamasundara," that's all. "Krsna" is a reference to a specific person endowed with the quality of prema madhurya. Thus this name includes within it svarupa-sakti. In other words, this person is surrounded by devotees endowed with dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and sringara rasas, all of which are sweet/intimate (madhurya). Is the name "Christ" (anointed one/messiah) indicating the same person? Does it contain lila madhurya within it? In terms of rasa vicara we differentiate between the names of Krsna and Narayana. This leads us to krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. Even if Christ is God and Krsna is God, still there is much to consider in terms of difference.
So, again, it is largely propaganda. This is further corroborated by other statements Prabhupada made about Christ that are not as flattering, questioning his preoccupation with healing and miracles, referring to him a mystic yogi rather than a Vaisnava, and so on. Sridhara Deva Goswami envisioned him as one day becoming a Vaisnava. Then again Thakura Bhaktivinode arguably was referring to him when he wrote in his Gita commentary that the appearance of the avatara to establish dharma is not restricted to India. He writes that saktyavesas may appear in other cultures and teach dharma in consideration of those cultures. But in any case, "Christ" and "Krsna" are different, even while there is some sense of unity between them. So for general propaganda it maybe appropriate at times to speak in terms of the unity, while remaining silent about the difference.
Bryan - February 28, 2013 11:43 am
Thank you for your detailed response, Maharaj.
Wow, I'll chew on that for some time. There is a story about Prabhupada meeting a nun, giving her his garland and speaking with her at length. He tells his disciples after that she is "a Vaisnav." In a similar way, is this also propaganda? Also, I wonder if you might expound on this concept of unity?
Prabhupada's statement is largely propaganda.
Where in the theology of nama dharma does the name "Christ" fit? When Mahaprabhu explained the meaning of Krsna nama he said "Yasondanandana, Sayamasundara," that's all. "Krsna" is a reference to a specific person endowed with the quality of prema madhurya. Thus this name includes within it svarupa-sakti. In other words, this person is surrounded by devotees endowed with dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and sringara rasas, all of which are sweet/intimate (madhurya). Is the name "Christ" (anointed one/messiah) indicating the same person? Does it contain lila madhurya within it? In terms of rasa vicara we differentiate between the names of Krsna and Narayana. This leads us to krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. Even if Christ is God and Krsna is God, still there is much to consider in terms of difference.
So, again, it is largely propaganda. This is further corroborated by other statements Prabhupada made about Christ that are not as flattering, questioning his preoccupation with healing and miracles, referring to him a mystic yogi rather than a Vaisnava, and so on. Sridhara Deva Goswami envisioned him as one day becoming a Vaisnava. Then again Thakura Bhaktivinode arguably was referring to him when he wrote in his Gita commentary that the appearance of the avatara to establish dharma is not restricted to India. He writes that saktyavesas may appear in other cultures and teach dharma in consideration of those cultures. But in any case, "Christ" and "Krsna" are different, even while there is some sense of unity between them. So for general propaganda it maybe appropriate at times to speak in terms of the unity, while remaining silent about the difference.
Swami - February 28, 2013 12:50 pm
Thank you for your detailed response, Maharaj.
Wow, I'll chew on that for some time. There is a story about Prabhupada meeting a nun, giving her his garland and speaking with her at length. He tells his disciples after that she is "a Vaisnav." In a similar way, is this also propaganda? Also, I wonder if you might expound on this concept of unity?
The general sense of unity is unity in terms of tattva. For example, in consideration of tattva Narayana and Krsna are both God. Whereas in consideration of rasa, Krsna excels. He tastes rasas that Narayana does not. Thus when we look at the sruti definition of Brahman as rasa—raso vai sah— we can understand that the manifestation of Brahman that is fullest in rasa is the fountainhead of all other manifestation of Brahman.
Bhakti is anukulyena krsnanusilanam—continuous service or emotions aimed at pleasing Krsna, his expansion forms or others related to him (such as sri guru and Vaisnavas)—is the primary characteristic of uttama bhakti. Thus arguably one could refer to an ongoing effort to please Christ as bhakti, if Christ is the kind of saktyavesa Thakura Bhaktivinoda speaks about.
Swami - February 28, 2013 4:01 pm
Christian theologian J.B. Carman's book on the Theology of Ramanuja is a very good book. I say that not having read it, but I am aware of his scholarship and the book's contents (although it's been some years). I don't know if he makes any claims of Christain influence on Ramanuja, but I seriously doubt it. Has anyone read it?
Gauravani Dasa - March 2, 2013 1:22 am
Christian theologian J.B. Carman's book on the Theology of Ramanuja is a very good book. I say that not having read it, but I am aware of his scholarship and the book's contents (although it's been some years). I don't know if he makes any claims of Christain influence on Ramanuja, but I seriously doubt it. Has anyone read it?
I just realized that J.B. Carman is the father of Peter Carman, who is the Pastor at my wife's church: http://www.binkleychurch.org/directory/minister
I could probably get a copy of his book.
Swami - March 2, 2013 1:59 am
I just realized that J.B. Carman is the father of Peter Carman, who is the Pastor at my wife's church: http://www.binkleychurch.org/directory/minister
I could probably get a copy of his book.
Interesting! I would like to have a copy myself. It is costly on amazon, even used.
Gauravani Dasa - March 2, 2013 2:01 am
I'll see what I can do...
Bryan - March 2, 2013 5:07 pm
Thank you, Maharaj, for delineating how one might think of discrete practices in terms of potential points of unity. I have always found the promotion of inclusiveness by Vaisnavas to be particularly attractive.
I'll seek out Carman's book on Ramanuja via inter-library loan. I have had good luck retrieving rare texts through inter-library loan services.
The general sense of unity is unity in terms of tattva. For example, in consideration of tattva Narayana and Krsna are both God. Whereas in consideration of rasa, Krsna excels. He tastes rasas that Narayana does not. Thus when we look at the sruti definition of Brahman as rasa—raso vai sah— we can understand that the manifestation of Brahman that is fullest in rasa is the fountainhead of all other manifestation of Brahman.
Bhakti is anukulyena krsnanusilanam—continuous service or emotions aimed at pleasing Krsna, his expansion forms or others related to him (such as sri guru and Vaisnavas)—is the primary characteristic of uttama bhakti. Thus arguably one could refer to an ongoing effort to please Christ as bhakti, if Christ is the kind of saktyavesa Thakura Bhaktivinoda speaks about.
Indra - March 3, 2013 6:11 pm
One other point we should remember in Srila Prabhupada's preaching was that he would sometimes be in the mood of the highest devotee and see the picture from 42,000 ft as opposed to the middle devotee who would see from 500ft. The point is SP was nothing if not effusive when he was talking to Christians who were, by any measure, fixed in their conceptions. He had no intention of disturbing their mind (although he did chastise as in the case of Cardinal Danilou)when he thought they were simply wasting his time or avoiding the question. SP was very generous and always encouraged every soul. So from his perspective the name of Christ and Krsna are the same, from our perspective we are limited by our cultural conditioning and bias and by our predispositions (adikar) that make us who we are. The best example I can think of was when I heard the holy names on TV in 1969. I happened to be watching TV with my mother (a devoted Christian). I was amazed and I distinctly remember feeling this was very familiar whereas my mother was appalled. We are all different and we take to our path according to the dictates of Karma and kama so we end up where we are supposed to be however only by the intervention of the guru can we change anything as guru is the direct agent of Krsna. SP was a great mahabagavat and everyone he met was changed so it is my opinion when he said the name's the same he was injecting something into the heart of that person that was perhaps not there before or reinforcing their bhakti for Christ knowing they should or could not change their path this life.