Tattva-viveka
Christian-Hindu interfaith discussion
Gauravani Dasa - October 10, 2013 1:27 pm
A lot of discussion occuring here:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-an-interfaith-couple-response
With the intent of encouraging folks to consider the Hindu prespective on divinity, and rather than making a case for krsnas tu bhagavan svayam, we've been trying make the case that God has appeared in different manifestations across time and culture, even in Christianity itself. I realize that some folks will not be open to this idea at all. Also, it is easy to cross the line into mayavada in this context. Any advice would be appreciated!
Citta Hari Dasa - October 15, 2013 10:25 pm
I don't know the Bible, but I seem to recall that there were more than one prophet God appeared to mentioned in it. If God appeared at different times to different people in the Biblical culture, then what's to stop him from appearing to others people in other cultures? Will they accept evidence from other scriptures? My guess is probably not, but why not? Are we to think that the Bible is the ONLY source of valid information about Divinity? That NO ONE besides those who follow Christ had or has ANY valid insight into the nature of Divinity? That's a big stretch in my opinion.
At any rate, one way of talking about it without resorting to scripture is a sort of common sense approach where you play out the implications of what is meant by Divine. God is unlimited, and to say that God only comes once, ever, is to limit him. Are we really so arrogant to say that we know EVERYTHING about God from ONE book?
Citta Hari Dasa - October 16, 2013 1:19 pm
After reading the comments in the thread you posted it's pretty apparent that those who subscribe to the penal substitution theory will never agree with your viewpoint. This idea seems to prevent them from seeing that God is one.
Gauravani Dasa - October 16, 2013 1:37 pm
Agreed. There is a thread with an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Karen) that was more productive. Here is her most recent comment:
Thank you, Fred. I want to clarify that, like Nicholas, I wouldn't say the "experience of God is limited to my own tradition." It seems to me that unless there are some intuitions of the nature of God common to all human beings (even if these may be only partial and mixed with error), nobody would be motivated to seek God, nor be able to recognize the fullness of His Self-revelation in Jesus Christ for what it is when they encounter it.
Perhaps you understand, though, that as a Christian, I do not understand Jesus Christ and Krishna, for example, as equally full or true revelations of the Absolute (whom Christians understand as a Trinity of Persons, each equally God, sharing in the same one Divine nature, co-eternal, etc., Creator of all that exists). I can believe, however, that if a Hindu were to have an intuitive encounter with the Spirit of Jesus Christ speaking in his heart and conscience (but not yet a full revelation of Him), he might believe he is encountering Krishna, inasmuch as there are many attributes ascribed to Krishna which are also ascribed to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, if a person comes to encounter Jesus Christ in greater fullness, he will begin to recognize certain Hindu teachings ab out Krishna as well as about the nature of the world and of the human being as false (for example, the belief in the transmigration of souls).
Much of what she says is similar to Gaudiya theology but I don't think it is worth evoking krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. I considered making the point that the Bhagavatam recognizes the unlimited manifestations of Divinity, even outside of Hinduism, and still makes the case for Krishna as the source from both tattva and rasa perspectives, while Christanity makes no such comprehensive recognition of other traditions yet still claims that Christ is the full face of Divinity. But I still admire her faith and the Eastern Orthodox approach.
Citta Hari Dasa - October 17, 2013 10:08 pm
From what I read most of the comments tend to make Christianity sound quite sectarian: Christ is the ONLY way to God, period. You and Dana are going to hell, so get used to it. Where's the compassion Christ was all about?
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 19, 2013 11:24 am
Interesting topic, Nice input Chitta Hari
It seems like most Christians want to forget the Old Testament which reflects most of the Gaudiya traditions especially as it pertains to diet "though Shalt not kill" & The book of Romans
Paul says in Corinthians I shall not eat the flesh thereof lest I caused my brother to fall
There is so much common in the Bible with the Guadiya tradition especially the part that states he shall be raised on milk and honey The Seventh-day Adventists have most of this documented as well as the Benedictine monk's, organized religions are withholding the discoveries of the true books of the Bible for fear of destroying organized religions false doctrines
Gopakumara Das - October 21, 2013 2:21 am
Sorry, the above post was a draft that I didn't complete before posting!
I wanted to share a few thoughts I had about the assertive claims those of other faiths can sometimes make. In my view, those claims are often only made with poor knowledge of their own tradition, theology and history. For example:
The ancient Semitic religions recognized multiple deities as god and at some point in history YHWH becomes the chosen god of the tribes through covenant (and conquest). But originally the commandment "you shall have no other gods before me" was not a denial that other gods existed, but an acknowledgment that they did. Also, the Bible refers to many other beings deemed divine but over time the demand for monotheism, from Abraham on, squelched what seemed to be a natural proclivity for the recognition of other valid deities. There is the relatively unknown consort of YHWH named Asherah and of course many other gods that were competing gods such as Baal and El. Of course as the dominance of YHWH won out the characteristics of those other gods did not disappear, they were simply subsumed under the character of YHWH (who was previously a minor, possibly a storm god, not unlike Indra).
Jesus is another story. The Christology of Jesus emerges relatively late and his identity as Son of God rather than: prophet, Wisdom (another likely female deity) incarnate, the Logos (action or word) made man, messiach, or simply a failed rabble rouser etc. The idea that he was God is a later concept that rests largely on the claim (whether true or false) that he died and resurrected and was assumed to the Father. However, even he was not the first Jewish end-times prophet, miracle worker, presumed messiah, or rabble rouser. To claim that as the Son of God he is "the only way to the Father" rests on so many assumptions and premises that is silly to think it is a final claim for all.
This is my long way of agreeing with Citta Hari in saying that no one can claim absolute monopoly on God and anyone who does is worshipping a strangely constrained god that is limited to existing within our conception. What a sad deity that cannot be other than what we imagine or consider him to be...
When we speak of "true" or "full" expressions of the Absolute we are working in contradiction. What would it mean to be true or full Absolute? The Absolute does not need to capitulate to our impossible-to-define concepts of "fullness" or "truth". Each tradition has to establish the qualities (most beautiful, most reciprocal in relating, most imminent, most transcendent, most powerful, etc...) by which to make such an evaluation and once the evaluation is complete they have a reigning deity. However, at the heart of all these evaluations we must see that the presumed qualities by which a deity is being assessed as most true or fullest are different from each other? As such, there is no valid comparison.
We simply go about evaluating each others ishta devatas according to distinct (and implicit) qualities and everyone thinks they have obviously won (because from their biased assessment they have). Better to allow for the spontaneous emergence of attraction for a particular deity and honor that whatever the "truth" or "fullness" value of that deity, that attraction is honest and authentic. It may even be meaningfully so. I know this may be a bit controversial –please remember that I sometimes enjoy playing devil's advocate– but even the claim that krsnas tu bhagavan svayam rests on certain theological values from which Krishna, particularly pastoral Krishna, emerges supreme. He is Supreme for many many valid and charming reasons. But for those that do not share those same values, Krishna may not be deemed supreme. In fact, this is one of the reasons that his pastoral lilas were often concealed behind his Dwaraka lilas in other Hindu sects.
Citta Hari Dasa - October 23, 2013 8:16 pm
Well said Gopa, but good luck getting most Christians, even those with some knowledge of theology, to agree that Jesus is not the ONLY way to God. As I saw in the thread I read many of them think Dana is going to hell along with Gauravani because she no longer worships Jesus exclusively.
Atmananda Dasa - October 24, 2013 11:20 am
Gauravani,
Maybe a good place to start an interfaith discussion is that no one religion has a monopoly on fanaticism. That might help to weed out the fanatics and thereby move the discussion forward. And we are not shy about admitting that there are plenty of fanatics in our own tradition.
What I see is at the heart of Christianity is the feeling that Christ is my deliverer from sin. I am fallen, lost, condemned, but Christ has saved me. He is ever present and all knowing, he knows me and loves me. He is guiding me and helping me through every trial of life. Therefore I owe him my life and my gratitude above all others. It is a beautiful sentiment that has the potential to foster beautiful qualities in a person. I think that you might be able to establish that people all over the world, across time and culture have experienced this same feeling in relation to God. I'm certain you could find prayers from all traditions which express this basic sentiment. If that can be established then you might be able to get into the theological implications, like God is really the only destroyer of sin, i.e. only divine intervention can deliver a person from samsara.
I think there are plenty of Christians who are open minded, although they may be the minority.
My father is a Presbyterian minister. He is not a very liberal guy. But he has found many things to appreciate about my involvement in Gaudiya Vaisnavism and we have found a lot of common ground around the idea that religious fanaticism is undesirable. The Presbyterian church recently changed their rules to allow for gay and lesbian people to be ordained which resulted in about 25% of the congregation leaving the his church. Surprisingly my father was very happy that they had left. He said that they were the most fanatical members of the church and he felt like a weight had been lifted. I grew up near New Vrindavan and my father used to receive mailings from there as part of their interfaith preaching. He told me that he found them repulsive because they reminded him of fanatic evangelical Baptist type of preaching that he had encountered before. He later learned that Kirtanananda grew up in an evangelical Baptist church and he attributed his fanaticism to that.
Also it is worth recognizing that many people will not be able to appreciate our point of view in Gaudiya Vaisnavism. But they may still be able to appreciate our kindness and good behavior.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 24, 2013 1:33 pm
Great analogy Atmananda
The Christians
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 24, 2013 1:35 pm
Seem to forget that John the Baptist baptisied Jesus and that Guru is one like the president has ambassadors that have the capacity to act for him
Gauravani Dasa - October 24, 2013 10:49 pm
Good points Atmananda. For the most part, I have attempted to make a similar presentation but have bumped up the conviction that "Christ is the only way." I will start another thread on the topic...
Swami - October 29, 2013 11:34 pm
Here is a question that came to my mind recently. If one follows the teaching of Christ with regard to how one should lead one's life but does not know about or believe literally in the resurrection, what is that person's fate? Are not the details concerning the resurrection meant to convince one of the divinity of Christ such that one is then inclined to follow his teaching as to how one should lead one's life? Because he died on the cross and rose from the dead; Because he is divine we should do as he says. So again what if one just does what he says and believes that such teachings are divine, even without reference to him personally?
Gauravani Dasa - October 29, 2013 11:59 pm
I ask the same questions, Guru Maharaja!
There are a few prominent theories regarding atonement in Christianity. Only one of them focuses on Christ's example or teachings (moral influence) and the rest of them focus on a kind of "legalistic" understanding. Western Protestantism has largely adopted penal substitution theory which, of course, makes Christ the only way to heaven. Eastern Christianity tends to emphasize the moral influence approach.
For the most part, Protestants are not even aware that there are other theories. A few are receptive.
Dulal Chandra Dasa - October 30, 2013 6:43 pm
Dulal Chandra Dasa - October 30, 2013 11:03 pm
conceptional* conceptual
Guru-nistha Das - October 31, 2013 1:27 am
That's an interesting point, Dulal. Could it be said that Chrsitians feel similary about it than how we would feel about a person who would appreciate Mahaprabhu's teachings and would call himself a Gaudiya Vaishnava but wouldn't believe Sri Caitanya to be God?
Dulal Chandra Dasa - November 1, 2013 4:38 pm
Brahma Dasa - November 3, 2013 5:35 am
Every religious group attempts to fit Jesus into their paradigm. The problem is the history is murky and conflicting theories that date back to antiquity abound. To some he’s a saint; to others he’s a yogi, avatar, or Hindu/Buddhist mystic; early Christian sects hardly agreed on his theological position. Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in the miracles or divinity of Jesus but he still considered himself a Christian based on appreciation for Jesus’ moral teachings.
At times Prabhupada classified Jesus (Mohammad and others) as saktavesa avatar but there is nothing specific in sastra about him, so his position as per Gaudiya theology is undefined. Anyone preaching in the west can hardly ignore Jesus so could this saktavesa avatar pronouncement be another preaching strategy?
Jesus is saktavesa avatar--Is this our theology? Is this definitive?
Swami - November 4, 2013 12:09 pm
In his Gita commentary on 4.8, Thakura Bhaktivinoda states that the descent of Krsna to establish dharma does no occur only in India. He says that God appears in other cultures in the form of an empowered devotee and teaches about dharma relative to that particular culture. I believe this is a reference to Jesus and perhaps Mohamed as well.
But I think the term "saktyavesa" needs to be understood. For example, Prabhupada should not be considered a saktyavesa avatar in every sense of the term, but rather that he was empowered by Nityananda for his preaching, perhaps in a similar manner in which Narasimha Brahmacari of Gaura lila was empowered by Mahaprabhu. Basically there are two types of saktyavesa avatars: One is God himself displaying a particular power for particular purpose and the other is an empowered devotee. Such empowered devotees may not always be so empowered. Once the purpose of the empowerment is accomplished, the empowerment is withdrawn.
Brahma Dasa - July 12, 2014 3:09 am
I was doing some research and I came across this statement Swami made on TV in 2007 about propaganda and preaching in relation to Jesus.
"There is no reliable evidence that Jesus was a sakyavesa avatara. Srila
Prabhupada did describe him as such once, but he also once questioned if he
was anything more than a mystic yogi. No previous acarya has acknowledged
him as an avatara of Visnu, saktyavesa or otherwise. Indeed, Bhaktisiddhanta
Saraswati Thakura once said that Mahaprabhu's Vasudeva, who was a leper, was
millions of times more advanced than Jesus. I believe that this is also
cited in the Bhaktivendanta Purports (See Cc).
So we should follow the previous acaryas with regard to worship. If more
recent acaryas from the West have spoken about Jesus in more flattering
terms, such is often the way of propaganda and preaching."