Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.

When Prabhupada was visiting Franciscan monastery on his 1975 visit to Australia - one of the Fathers there have put a question to him. He asked, what has he thought of the God consciousness of St Francis who would call animals and even death itself, his brothers and sisters. Prabhupada opened his eyes wide and he said: "this is real God consciousness".

Of course when Franciscans or other Catholic is vegetarian- it is not the sufficient reason to be compatible with Krishna consciousness, after all there are fundamentalists in both traditions. but the good news are - Prabhupada was not one of them.

Probably most incompatible with Krishna Consciousness is tantric or monistic Hinduism e.g. left hand/occult practices or Mayavadism.

[quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.[/quote]
Thats the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.

He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15

Christianity (or Judaism for some devotees) is compatible with only the initial stages of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Eventually it becomes a complete rasa-bhasa and one is forced to make a clear choice. That is my practical observation as well as doctrinal conclusion.

[quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite][quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.[/quote]
Thats the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.

He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15[/quote]

Where does it explicitly say that Jesus ate meat? Those verses, for the sake of condemning hypocrisy, seem to be denying the need to eat with washed hands, compared with the need to have a clean heart. Its been used many times by Christians to support their desire for eating the bodies of slaughtered animals, but thats not what Jesus was talking about, was it? Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.

cbrahma:Thats the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.

Pandu:Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.

Many Christians are Vegies. The way early Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism

But the question of rasa remain. There is however notion of bridal mysticism in some Christian orders, but are we so much incompatible with Sri and Vallabha sampradayas, just because they express preference to a different rasa, are we incompatible with Nityanandavamsa, just because of sakhya-rasa prevalence, they are not apasampradayas. But back to the dividing aspect:

Satyaraja in his book, Food for the Spirit, write and gives a bit more background info:

The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured.

Sure the scriptures were edited at the time to remove references to vegie Christians.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite][quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]...christianity is religion for meat eaters,at least they believe in God,but they cannot understand who is God.[/quote]
Thats the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.

He said to them, "Are even you still without understanding?
17
Do you not realize that everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled into the latrine?
18
But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile.
19
8 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, unchastity, theft, false witness, blasphemy.
20
These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Matthew
Chapter 15[/quote]

Where does it explicitly say that Jesus ate meat? Those verses, for the sake of condemning hypocrisy, seem to be denying the need to eat with washed hands, compared with the need to have a clean heart. Its been used many times by Christians to support their desire for eating the bodies of slaughtered animals, but thats not what Jesus was talking about, was it? Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.[/quote]
The verses distinquish between rules meant for the body and rules meant for the spirit. Food is for the body and cannot defile the spirit. - This makes perfect sense to me.
Lets not forget that Jesus was a Jew . He celebrated the Sadir meal at Passover
The climax of the Seder meal should be the festive meal of roast lamb. However, since the Temple no longer stands in Jerusalem (where the Passover lamb was sacrificed), a shankbone is presented as a reminder of the Passover Lamb.
Also he chose his disciples from Palestinian fisherman. The Gospel tells how he ate with them (that would be fish). At no point in his ministry does Jesus preach against eating meat, ignoring the dietary restrictions because he ate with Gentiles.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]cbrahma:Thats the party line of course. Jesus ate meat.

Pandu:Ordinary dirt on the hands is a matter of hygeine, but eating the filthy flesh of a slaughtered animal is a sin. The desire for eating flesh also comes from the heart as much as any other evil thoughts.

Many Christians are Vegies. The way early Essenes, the Nazoreans and Ebionites lived suggests that Christ was probably a vegetarian. See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism

But the question of rasa remain. There is however notion of bridal mysticism in some Christian orders, but are we so much incompatible with Sri and Vallabha sampradayas, just because they express preference to a different rasa, are we incompatible with Nityanandavamsa, just because of sakhya-rasa prevalence, they are not apasampradayas. But back to the dividing aspect:

Satyaraja in his book, Food for the Spirit, write and gives a bit more background info:

The early Christian fathers adhered to a meatless regime...many early Christian groups supported the meatless way of life. In fact, the writings of the early Church indicate that meat eating was not officially allowed until the 4th century, when the Emperor Constantine decided that his version of Christianity would be the version for everyone. A meat eating interpretation of the Bible became the official creed of the Roman Empire, and vegetarian Christians had to practice in secret or risk being put to death for heresy. It is said that Constantine used to pour molten lead down the their throats if they were captured.

Sure the scriptures were edited at the time to remove references to vegie Christians.[/quote]
BTW John the Baptist, though Essene, we are told ate locusts and honey.
I dont know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.
They regarded some animals as unclean but not all.
The law on clean and unclean animals in the Pentateuch divides all animals into two groups: clean which can be eaten, and unclean which are not to be eaten.

[quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite]
I dont know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian...
they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.[/quote]
Majority of gaudiyas (specifically the guys living in Bengal) do not comply with the Iskcon standards of cleanliness. They do not follow the principles such as no illicit sex in marriage. Majority of brahmacaris and sanniyasis who one time or another took on saffron, do not do it anymore and do not even try to keep semen. It can degrade even further, just as Christianity did. But the fact is that Jews, Christians and even Muslims are good Christians, Jews and Muslims if they are vegetarian, all following their rules. I agree that they are not compatible to eat together, that is true, but nothing in the doctrine is contradicting the basics of sambhandha jnana. But hey we are not compatible with majority of Buddhists and Saivaites as well. Did you ever go to Swaminarayana mandir, they worship Radha Krishna there, but we are not really compatible with them.

Some time ago I wrote this comment on vegetarianism in Abrahamic traditions:

To argue with Christians, Jews or Muslims regarding meat eating usually leads to a stalemate since their view is quite different from a Vaishnava view. They will claim the Bible is full of meat eating, animal sacrifices, etc. which is true. But lets take a closer look.

Quotes about meat eating are present already in Genesis 9 as an intentionally complex and restricted concession for Noah. They are the basis of Jewish kosher (analogous to Muslim halal) rules about how to prepare meat and how to mix it with another dairy foods. However,
it is practically impossible to drain all blood from the flesh. Ultimately, this whole troublesome procedure for eating meat is meant to persuade one to adopt a vegetarian diet, the only 100% kosher diet.

"In previous times, abstaining from meat was associated with asceticism and fasting. One will never find any references to any word akin to vegetarian in ancient sources. It is a modern concept and term. Rules of orders like St. Benedicts, the Nazareans/Nazarite vows, etc. prescribe avoiding flesh. To be an ascetic in the Mediterranean region meant no flesh eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex and no gaming/gambling." (Bhakti Ananda Goswami)

The basic difference is between pravritti and nivritti marga approaches. Nivritti marga in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is practically found only in Christian monastic orders. Some of their
founders prescribed no-flesh or minimum-flesh diet but in recent times these rules tend to be abandoned like in case of Cistercians and possibly others.

St. Paul says that which comes into a mouth doesnt pollute and one can either eat meat or not but that it is completely irrelevant to ones holiness. He commented on eating meat offered to idols (from a Vedic point of view an unauthorized deva worship) and concluded that its better not to eat it in order to avoid damaging otherss faith (1 Corinthians 8). We can agree that pollution by meat is not as serious as a wicked nature which manifests both by words coming from a mouth and actions. Time, place and circumstances of Biblical context must be considered though.

Another obstacle for Christians is that meat abstention was also supported by various heretic sects (mainly mayavadi Gnostics) and this may predetermine their view of Vaishnavas.

An efficient way to present this issue is an appeal to mercy - "Do for my food, clothes and entertainment have to suffer and die other living beings?" Violence doesnt seem to fit Jesus as a Good Shepherd preaching love and mercy.

"...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)

More: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/change.htm#2

Wine used in Christian tradition originally had a low-alcohol content and was often mixed with water for offering. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol

Constantine pouring molten lead to vegetarianss mouths is a myth. Punishment by pouring liquid lead is mentioned in the law of Constantine, but not related to vegetarians.

Recent article on vegetarianism in Islam:
http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/jvpassover.html
PASSOVER AND VEGETARIANISM
by Richard H. Schwartz

http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html
Jesus and the early Christians
Was Christ a Vegetarian?
by Ted Altar

http://www.europeanvegetarian.org/evu/english/news/news972/celebrations.html
1847-1997 Vegetariansm - A Cause for Celebration - religious origins of the Vegetarian Society UK

Ethics, Christianity and Vegetarianism (European Congress 1997)
http://www.ivu.org/congress/euro97/ethics.html

Religion & Vegetarianism / Are Christians Vegetarians?
http://www.ivu.org/news/95-96/religion.html

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite]
I dont know which Christians you know, but not only are the majority of Christians NOT vegetarian...
they also drink alcohol, another mainstay of the liturgical churches. Jews were not generally vegetarian. How could they be, since so many of the ritual sacrifices were animal sacrifices? Kosher laws are all about the correct ritual slaughter of animals.[/quote]
Majority of gaudiyas (specifically the guys living in Bengal) do not comply with the Iskcon standards of cleanliness. They do not follow the principles such as no illicit sex in marriage. Majority of brahmacaris and sanniyasis who one time or another took on saffron, do not do it anymore and do not even try to keep semen. It can degrade even further, just as Christianity did. But the fact is that Jews, Christians and even Muslims are good Christians, Jews and Muslims if they are vegetarian, all following their rules. I agree that they are not compatible to eat together, that is true, but nothing in the doctrine is contradicting the basics of sambhandha jnana. But hey we are not compatible with majority of Buddhists and Saivaites as well. Did you ever go to Swaminarayana mandir, they worship Radha Krishna there, but we are not really compatible with them.[/quote]

This is all an excercise in begging the question, that is, presuming first what is to be proven. Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas and then that they would therefore understand that one of the rules as you put it is to be vegetarian, youre conclusion has no merit. Also, simply because some Christians choose to be vegetarian does not mean that it is a mandate of Christian doctrine.
None of the teaching traditions of the Christian church, which for centuries was the Roman Catholic Church, mention diet, except for fasting from red meat on Fridays. The Protestants likewise , even those that avoid alchohol and gambling, make no rule regarding vegetarian diet.
I will repeat, though possibly to no effect, Jesus teaching on the subject is conspicuous by its absence. Jesus knew about the animal sacrifices that were going on in the temple and did not comment. The theological tradition BTW is that animals dont have souls.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Some time ago I wrote this comment on vegetarianism in Abrahamic traditions:

To argue with Christians, Jews or Muslims regarding meat eating usually leads to a stalemate since their view is quite different from a Vaishnava view. They will claim the Bible is full of meat eating, animal sacrifices, etc. which is true. But lets take a closer look.

Quotes about meat eating are present already in Genesis 9 as an intentionally complex and restricted concession for Noah. They are the basis of Jewish kosher (analogous to Muslim halal) rules about how to prepare meat and how to mix it with another dairy foods. However,
it is practically impossible to drain all blood from the flesh. Ultimately, this whole troublesome procedure for eating meat is meant to persuade one to adopt a vegetarian diet, the only 100% kosher diet.

"In previous times, abstaining from meat was associated with asceticism and fasting. One will never find any references to any word akin to vegetarian in ancient sources. It is a modern concept and term. Rules of orders like St. Benedicts, the Nazareans/Nazarite vows, etc. prescribe avoiding flesh. To be an ascetic in the Mediterranean region meant no flesh eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex and no gaming/gambling." (Bhakti Ananda Goswami)

The basic difference is between pravritti and nivritti marga approaches. Nivritti marga in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is practically found only in Christian monastic orders. Some of their
founders prescribed no-flesh or minimum-flesh diet but in recent times these rules tend to be abandoned like in case of Cistercians and possibly others.

St. Paul says that which comes into a mouth doesnt pollute and one can either eat meat or not but that it is completely irrelevant to ones holiness. He commented on eating meat offered to idols (from a Vedic point of view an unauthorized deva worship) and concluded that its better not to eat it in order to avoid damaging otherss faith (1 Corinthians 8). We can agree that pollution by meat is not as serious as a wicked nature which manifests both by words coming from a mouth and actions. Time, place and circumstances of Biblical context must be considered though.

Another obstacle for Christians is that meat abstention was also supported by various heretic sects (mainly mayavadi Gnostics) and this may predetermine their view of Vaishnavas.

An efficient way to present this issue is an appeal to mercy - "Do for my food, clothes and entertainment have to suffer and die other living beings?" Violence doesnt seem to fit Jesus as a Good Shepherd preaching love and mercy.

"...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40)

More: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/change.htm#2

Wine used in Christian tradition originally had a low-alcohol content and was often mixed with water for offering. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_alcohol

Constantine pouring molten lead to vegetarianss mouths is a myth. Punishment by pouring liquid lead is mentioned in the law of Constantine, but not related to vegetarians.

Recent article on vegetarianism in Islam:
http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160http://namahatta.org/en/node/9160[/quote]
Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people. I dont believe that ones diet is cause to think ones self above others who do not. In fact any renunciate practice does not give cause to take a superior attitude. Renunciates can be just as arrogant and un-loving as those who are not. It is merely external and the history of supposed renunciates of the kind we have seen in ISKCON bears that out.

[quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite] Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas.[/quote] I never assume that they are. In fact I would not assume it for anyone before seeing actual vaishnava qualities. Belonging to a tradition or a sect does not make one a Vashnava. What to speak of belonging to such a religion as Christianity where anything goes these days.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] cbrahma:[/cite] Since you assume that Christians are Vaisnavas.[/quote] I never assume that they are. In fact I would not assume it for anyone before seeing actual vaishnava qualities. Belonging to a tradition or a sect does not make one a Vashnava. What to speak of belonging to such a religion as Christianity where anything goes these days.[/quote]
Now I am in agreement. That would of course, include ISKCON.

> Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people.

Only for those who want to understand God as per the SP quote in my linked article.

> I dont believe that ones diet is cause to think ones self above others who do not.

Neither is this suggested anywhere. At the same time Krishna defines sattvic diet as superior to rajasic and tamasic.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> Actually the Vedas are full of animal sacrifices and vegetarianism is not an absolute requirement for all people.

Only for those who want to understand God as per the SP quote in my linked article.

> I dont believe that ones diet is cause to think ones self above others who do not.

Neither is this suggested anywhere. At the same time Krishna defines sattvic diet as superior to rajasic and tamasic.[/quote]
Superior? In what way? Materially? Sattva-guna is as the name implies a guna which means rope. It is material.

See BG 17.8-

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]See BG 17.8-[/quote]
Your point being?

I am not as learned as some of you...
But it seems to me that Jesus and Krishna really had the same message...REMEMBER ME IN WHAT YOU THINK AND IN WHAT YOU DO....i mean from just a common sense standpoint, if you remember Krishna or Jesus and the example set forth by them, and apply said example to your life, can you go wrong?
I know Krishna would not steal and Jesus would not kill neither would I...its common sense...i know those things are wrong in my mind as well as in my heart.
Do Christianity and Krishna-ism really have to be compatible with each other anyways? Isnt that why we have different flavors of ice cream? Krishna works for me Jesus works for you. O.K. great!
I dont think any one person can say that there is only one truth. (as so many fanatics from so many faiths love to do)
Perhaps one day we will all have the answers and a good laugh over a pint in that great pub in the sky.
Until then we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth by debating over stuff that really does not matter anyway.
I love you whoever you are!

Hare Krishna!

YOGASVAR

[quote][cite] yogasvar:[/cite]I am not as learned as some of you...
But it seems to me that Jesus and Krishna really had the same message...REMEMBER ME IN WHAT YOU THINK AND IN WHAT YOU DO....i mean from just a common sense standpoint, if you remember Krishna or Jesus and the example set forth by them, and apply said example to your life, can you go wrong?[/quote]

Remember who? Krishna, or Jesus? Kali, Indra, or Siva? Pandu or Yogasvar? Are you saying we should remember an impersonal self? [br /][br /]

Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita 8.5, "And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt." [br /][br /]

"...remembering Me alone,..." means remembering Krishna, not someone else. When did Jesus ever say, "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."? If he did, it didnt make it into the Bible. I cant find Krishnas name anywhere in the Bible. [br /][br /]

[quote]I know Krishna would not steal and Jesus would not kill neither would I...its common sense...i know those things are wrong in my mind as well as in my heart.
Do Christianity and Krishna-ism really have to be compatible with each other anyways? Isnt that why we have different flavors of ice cream? Krishna works for me Jesus works for you. O.K. great![/quote]

Have you talked to any devout Christians lately? If so, do they think Krishna consciousness is just a different flavor of religion? Why dont we stock the books of all kinds of religoins and distribute whatever people prefer? That would be easy.[br /][br /]

[quote]I dont think any one person can say that there is only one truth. (as so many fanatics from so many faiths love to do)[/quote]

Well, sure. Im a man. (The body is typing.) Im a spirit soul. (Thats the self in the body, my real identity.) Both are true. However, the question is which truth is superior. This body will disintegrate in due course of time and thereby become untrue; but I will always be a spirit soul. Two true statements, but one transcends and is superior. Similarly, God has many names, forms, etc., but we are primarily concerned with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Is that Jesus or Krishna?
[br /][br /]

[quote]Perhaps one day we will all have the answers and a good laugh over a pint in that great pub in the sky.[/quote]

Sounds like heaven. Im hoping to skip heaven and find my place at Krishnas lotus feet. Im not sure youll find many Christians in heaven either.
[br /][br /]

[quote]Until then we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth by debating over stuff that really does not matter anyway.[/quote]

Christians kill millions of cows every year, and billions of other animals, because their religion says "God gave us animals to eat." Does that not matter? They say Jesus is the only way to salvation. The dismiss the Bhagavad-gita and all the Vedic literatures, saying the Bible is the only true word of God. Does the fourth offense against the Holy Name of the Lord not matter? It seems to me that "we are not likely to experience any true spiritual growth" with the "Im OK; youre OK" approach to deviant religions.
[br /][br /]
[quote]I love you whoever you are!

Hare Krishna

YOGASVAR[/quote]

Hare Krishna.

I agree. The essence - bhagavad bhakti - is the same, the presentation somehow differs as per time, place and circumstances. This is true for all theistic traditions.

Pandu,

you miss my point...i will not try to clarify because it was pretty simple the first time...i was not talking about christians or hindus or any other group...I was talking about Krishna and Jesus...
Anyway prabu, you might be right....but you may be wrong...

Hare Krishna!

Yogasvar

I guess one of the problems is that Jesus wasnt a Christian, and really we dont know much at all about what Jesus actually said or did. I cant help but question the this supposed inerrancy of the Bible. Does YHWH mean VISNU?

Apparently Jesus worshiped a God called Yahweh, or Jehovah, or something like that. The Bible doesnt even tell us. Ive never heard of such a name in the Vedic literatures, nor does the name of Krsna or Visnu appear in the Bible. If someone says Ganapati is God or Kali is God, is it bhakti? No. It is demigod worship. I dont know who the God of the Bible is, but if that is really God, then why do the Vedas not give any such indication. Or if they do, what is it?

I was born in a Catholic family, and when my brother got married, I took Communion in the church wearing tilak and sikha. I didnt think I needed to go to confession before it because I was always chanting Krishnas names. Later I was told people there were offended. If I want to go in a church most anywhere and worship Krishna, what are the chances it will be appreciated by the Christians there? I think it would be unlikely. Similarly, if a Christian brought a Bible to the Hare Krishna temple and started insisting on its authority and quoting Jesus saying Hes the only way, how would we appreciate it?

Even in a secular environment, theres an example that comes to mind. Its not Jesus, but its arguable whether modern Christians are followers of Jesus at all. Ive made our land into somewhat of a farm animal sanctuary with a small herd consisting of a cow, three sheep, three goats, and a variety of other smaller animals. In the office where I work, there are several devout Christians, and every one of them would be happy to eat any of these animals I mentioned. Most Christians I know would like me better if I would kill my animals and shut up about being a vegetarian. If there is some calamity and food becomes a little scarce, well have to watch out that these animals dont get stolen by Christians and eaten. Also, I cannot go to any of our office parties or even the annual banquet because what to speak of prasadam cooked by brahmana devotees, almost everything is meat. Not a day goes by at work when I do not get assaulted by the ghastly smell of death at lunchtime, stories of hunting exploits or glorification of the tastes of meat dishes, mostly by Christians. Its usually pretty horrible to be around Christians at mealtime. Turn them into vegetarians, give them prasad, and get them to chant Hare Krishna.

Or... get them to chant Hare Krishna, give them prasad, and turn them into vegetarians.

Hare Krishna

Pandu, you can refer them to the above links about vegetarianism in Christianity.

Jesus was a Vaishnava-related monotheist as seen from tilaka marks on early icons and the Turin Shroud (listed among Vignon markings):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sphysical.html
http://xoomer.alice.it/bachm/MANTON94.PDF

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]

Apparently Jesus worshiped a God called Yahweh, or Jehovah, or something like that. The Bible doesnt even tell us. Ive never heard of such a name in the Vedic literatures, nor does the name of Krsna or Visnu appear in the Bible. If someone says Ganapati is God or Kali is God, is it bhakti? No. It is demigod worship. I dont know who the God of the Bible is, but if that is really God, then why do the Vedas not give any such indication. Or if they do, what is it?[/quote]

Well I guess we should accept that he worshiped the supreme god, not local demi-gods.

so anugrahaya bhaktanam anurupatma-darsanam - He manifests His innumerable transcendental forms for the satisfaction of His devotees.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliodorus_(minister) - some devotees suggested that the two boys met by Heliodorus were forms of Krishna and Balarama and this is the first step of his conversion to Vasnavism. which apparently happened later.

I myself yet to see a conclusive sastic proof that the god of Hebrews is the supreme God of Purusa Sukta of RgVeda.

However it seems that according to all, unlike his relatives, Jews, Jesus did worship the original Personality of Godhead.

However I should trust Prabhupada on this:

It is not a fact that the Lord appears only on Indian soil. He can manifest Himself anywhere and everywhere, and whenever He desires to appear. In each and every incarnation, He speaks as much about religion as can be understood by the particular people under their particular circumstances. But the mission is the same-to lead people to God consciousness and obedience to the principles of religion. Sometimes He descends personally, and sometimes He sends His bona fide representative in the form of His son, or servant, or Himself in some disguised form. Bg 4.7 purp.

1) There is evidence of Vegetarianism in branches of Christianity even to this day.
2) Christ never said he was god.
3) Christ himself said: Now I have cured you of your sins go forth and sin no more (follow some principles)

Srila Prabhupada accepted Christ as the Guru of the Christians (There are written references to this in his conversations)

The point where Christianity lost it for me before I came to Iskcon was the final relationship offered bewteen God and the follower of Jesus it was similar to the relationship between a King and his subject, very removed and it had no depth and no ras (sweetness). Its like when the Queen waves from her Automobile at her subjects as she passes.

The final relationship offered bewteen Krishna and the Jiva by Chaintainya Mahaprabhu and the disciplic succession that has followed him is deeper and sweeter than any other known religious or spiritual process.

However I would never take it upon myself to blaspheme any other religion. I always thought Vaisnavas were supposed to be humble and full of compassion for the fallen conditioned soul. (I cant see how blaspheming others fits into Vaisnava conduct)

abrahmin->BTW John the Baptist, though Essene, we are told ate locusts and honey

Apparently the locust referred to here is some kind of carob foodstuff and not an insect according to Satyaraja prabhu.

I think that many people "have a problem with Christianity" and "blaspheme it" because of some particular set of values and principles that Christianity brings up, especially the Christianity as it is popularly preached/practised. This "having a problem with Christianity" is a bit of a hasty generalization, because there are also other religions and philosophies that bring up those same or similar values and principles.

But (popular) Christianity is probably the one with that set of values and principles that many people find unacceptable.

I will not go into whether the following values and principles were originally taught by Jesus, because there is so much dispute over what Jesus really taught, what the constitutional teachings of the Bible and of Christianity are, and other text-critical issues.

Popularly, these are some of the values and principles that Christianity usually stands for:

1. A god who throws some his children into hell for eternity and tortures them for all eternity, with no chance of redemption, is a just and loving god.
2. We are inherently flawed therefore we sin; god made us so, yet it is our fault, we have to take responsibility for it as if we chose to be faulty,and we need to be forgiven for this fault.
3. We have to choose the right religion in this life time; we have only this one chance. If we dont chose the right religion and do what is necessary, we go to hell for all eternity, with no chance of redemption.
4. God is not in the business of making people happy; if we want to be happy, we have to see to it ourselves (such as by sex, food, ...).

In my experience, it is these above that many people find unacceptable. And they will criticize such values and principles, point out inconsistencies, contradictions, or blatant immorality.
Some people consider such criticism to be blasphemy.

Many Christians consider it blasphemy to criticize the notion of a loving god casting souls into hell for all eternity.
Many Christians consider it blasphemy to criticize the notion of there being only one life time in which we have to choose the right religion, or burn in hell for all eternity.
Some Christians are deeply offended if one asks them "How do you know you are not just imagining god; how do you know god is really there?"

[quote][cite] manasi_seva:[/cite]However I would never take it upon myself to blaspheme any other religion. I always thought Vaisnavas were supposed to be humble and full of compassion for the fallen conditioned soul. (I cant see how blaspheming others fits into Vaisnava conduct)[/quote]

Different people have different criteria for what constitutes blasphemy.

For example: I used to be related to Christianity/Christians. When my then friends, Christians, found out I was reading the Bhagavad-gita, some said that that book was a blasphemy of the Lord.

Most probably Ive posted this here before but the eternal hell seems to be most probably a textual misinterpretation:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm#4

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Most probably Ive posted this here before but the eternal hell seems to be most probably a textual misinterpretation:

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/reincarnation.htm#4[/quote]

Generally, Christianity stands with the doctrine of eternal hell, and falls without it.

If there is no eternally relevant negative consequence for not following the instructions of the Bible/Jesus/Christians, then why bother following them at all?

For many people, Christians and non-Christians alike, the purpose of following the instructions of the Bible/Jesus/Christians is simply to avoid Gods wrath. Not to have a better life, to become perfected spiritually, to live in happy unison with God or something like that.

Apart from the threat of eternal hell and the admonition to act in a manner so as to avoid it, I dont see anything that Christianity offers, that would not also be offered by secular humanism, Spiritual Universalism, common sense, New Age ... Whereby these tend to offer it at a much lesser price than Christianity (price in terms of money, in terms of humiliation, in terms of how much imagination one has to muster to follow a spiritual principle or path, in terms of breaking up ties with ones family and friends).

So you say that non-eternal punishment is no punishment at all? I fail to see any logic in this.

To follow God to avoid His wrath is really the lowest motivation level, imho. But it may well be the major motivation. I havent seen any stats.

Most of Western post-Enlightenment ideologies build on Christian values (although without God or with a limited God) without admitting it.

The doctrine of eternal hell concludes that non-eternal punishment is no punishment at all.
I suppose such a conclusion is inevitable if we operate out of a conception of only one life time for action, with no karma and no reincarnation. And/or if we operate out of a conception that God is evil or whimsical, or if we are not sure about Gods true nature.

Not really. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory can be traced to the early Christianity. It provides temporary punishment for lesser sins.
Karma is found in the Bible (see krima, krino). Reincarnation is not explicit yet some texts seem to allude to it, thru pre-existence. It may be surprising but Catholic Church doesnt officially ban reincarnation as a private view and a significant percentage of Catholics allegedly accepts it. (Thats not the case of Protestant Churches prevalent in America though.)
Evil God is a Gnostic concept (demiurge), analogical to creator Brahma.
Vagueness of Gods nature is one of the significant lacks in Christianity.

More elaboration on these topics with refs is found on our website.

As for the notion of an evil God:
I dont see how the problem of evil can be explained without karma and reincarnation.
Without karma and reincarnation, how is a theist to explain the existence of evil, while still maintaining that God is omnibenevolent? Seeing all the evil in this world, all the suffering, being affected by it, while having no notion of karma and reincarnation, one easily concludes that God must be evil to allow this. Or at least that God is benevolent, but weak.

That said, I am not so interested in the official Christian doctrines/arguments/teachings, but in the individual statements and arguments that are popularly known, whether they are in line with the official Christianity or not. This is because I think an actual person has contact with the actual practice of theism, with actual statements and arguments made by actual people - and in ones own practice, it is these that need to be addressed. Because it is these that may be wreaking havoc in ones mind, not necessarily the official doctrines etc..

So the OP question can be answered in two ways - one is the scholarly way, dealing with the official doctrines, the other is the practical one, as it pertains to the actual experience of individual people.

> Without karma and reincarnation, how is a theist to explain the existence of evil, while still maintaining that God is omnibenevolent?

Theists (Abrahamic) usually resort to statements like Gods purpose is hidden to us, or mysterious are ways of God which are not satisfactory to many people. Therefore the Argument from Evil is still one of the prominent atheistic arguments in current debates (see YT).
Already for some time Im collecting these arguments from real persons to refute them from the pov of Vaishnava Vedanta.

ksibeva madhv-asava-tamra-locanah

Thus bewildered, such less intelligent persons become angry at the Supreme Lord, and due to their angry mood the Lord Himself appears angry and very fearful. SB 5.17.20

> Theists (Abrahamic) usually resort to statements like Gods purpose is hidden to us, or mysterious are ways of God which are not satisfactory to many people. Therefore the Argument from Evil is still one of the prominent atheistic arguments in current debates (see YT).

I presume "YT" means YouTube?

> Already for some time Im collecting these arguments from real persons to refute them from the pov of Vaishnava Vedanta.

Are they already available online? I would really appreciate the refutation of such arguments, I think they would help me.

Yes.

Not yet.

Heres something about the Stone paradox. Comments welcome.

--
Can God create a stone so heavy He cant lift? (Paradox of the stone)

This old paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox tries to refute the omnipotence of God but it rests on a premise of (1) static and (2) successive action (first stone, then its lifting) by (3) God Himself. This idea is based on anthropomorphism (attributing human nature to God) due to the lack of the knowledge of Gods real nature in Abrahamic traditions. Here is a Vedic approach.

Omnipotence (Lat. omnis - all, potentia - energy) refers to the possession of all (sarva) energies (saktis). God is therefore known as the possessor of all saktis, sarva-saktiman (see Bhagavad Gita 7.4-6, Vedanta sutra 2.1.30, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan#Definitions).
The nature of God is inexhaustible (avyayam, Bhagavad Gita refs: 4.6, 7.13,25, 9.13,18, 11.4,18, 13.32, 15.5,17). This is reflected in His assuming various vyuhas (Bhagavata Purana 5.17.14, 11.6.10, 10.13.21-27, 12.11.21,27-28,50) and avataras (BhP 6.9.26-27) whose number is endless. (asankhyeya, BhP 1.3.26) God is called avatari, the source of avataras who are compared to candles (Brahmasamhita 5.46). Despite God is still One (bhurisah tu ekah, BhP 2.4.9).
His saktis due to working under His control (BG 9.10, BhP 4.17.33, 10.1.25) are also dynamic, always expanding (virya-upabrmhanaya, BhP 5.20.40, vitatya mayam, BhP 10.14.19, vistarayan kridasi yoga-mayam, BhP 10.14.21, mayam tatana, BhP 10.45.1). He acts through them. (ad 3)
In the dynamic (ad 1,2) God-saktis system one cant pinpoint a specific time when God would create such a stone and then (try to) lift it. This situation is similar to quantum physicss uncertainty principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

I quite like the polymorphic explanation rather then going into sakti-saktiman duality that will inevitably be disputed by those who do not subscribe to it. In other words even the act of creation itself is delegated to purusa-avatara expansions, thus God does not really create, and *if* He did, there are expansions, such as first prakasa expansion, that will do the job of lifting such stone that he creates. Singularity or monomorphism of God that is prominent in Semitic traditions, is thus the basis of this paradox, and should be accepted as limiting to God.

In other words drop the saktis...

Haribol. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

"Is Christianity compatible with Gaudiya Vaisnavism?

Compatibility is to see everything through Lord Krishnas eyes, which means to become a first class devotee. He has given facilities of the world to all souls equally according to their past work. And according to the degree of interest in Him and His service, He is available--from the small child who sees foodstuff as Supreme, all the way up to being in a direct relationship with Him as servant, friend, parent or lover. All education is valid; however, there are gradations, like the gradations from kindergarten, to first grade, up through to high school, university and post-graduate levels.

"Christians pay little attention to ISKCON members, who they dont even consider to have any signficant effect on the Western culture."
Just as a child in first grade has no interest in the university level of education.

"It is interesting to hear ISKCON members blaspheme Christians". This criticism is often done because they are either trying to protect their new faith or because they are preaching to help raise the Christians to a higher standard. Srila Prabhupada mainly criticized their not following their own commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill", and he said productive discussion of God could not take place until they followed it.

"How does Gaudiya Vaisnavism understand itself, therefore to be non-secatarian?"
Non-sectarian means it is the dharma of every soul (which is not sectarian, not bodily identified in the pure state) to surrender to and serve the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna. Everyone is invited to practice surrendering and service at the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, no matter what material body they are wearing or which philosophy or religion they have been with previously. Of course it is graduate work, so not everyone has the sukriti or qualification to follow it. Those unqualified souls who are pious in nature will stay where they are in the lower grades and gradually advance life after life to bhakti yoga under the guidance of the Lord in the heart Himself. UNLESS they hear the chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra and take Sri Krishna prasadam which is Srila Prabhupadas great mercy on the miserable resident of Kali Yuga. Just by hearing and eating in contact with the Lord, the qualification arises from within.

ccd: Thanks. Imho yes, itd look smoother - but its not the full Vedic picture. Besides, for every view therere some who dont subscribe to it.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Heres something about the Stone paradox. Comments welcome.

--
Can God create a stone so heavy He cant lift? (Paradox of the stone)
[/quote] [br]

[br]My own lay thoughts to such paradoxes are these:[br]

[br]"Can God create a stone so heavy He cant lift?" Suppose He did, or suppose He didnt - who could tell if He did or didnt? Could we, with our limited abilities, discern this? No.
[br]Or the "Can God create a square circle?" Who knows. Its not like we have the ability to see a square circle so that we could test it.[br]

[br]IOW, what is the point of trying to logically solve a problem that would require empirical verification for which we are not qualified (at least not yet)?[br]

[br]If those paradoxes were designed with the intention to refute (Gods) omnipotence, then they are self-defeating from the onset. It would require omnipotence to either prove or disprove omnipotence, and if we agree we dont have omnipotence, then such proofs are beyond our abilities.

[br]Unless we presume that it is possible to prove or disprove omnipotence by less than omnipotent abilities. But I dont see how such an approach can be justified.

Baker: Agreed. Tarko apratisthah. But sastra is pratisthah.

The chief factor of Christianity that distinguishes it from other religions is the belief that God became man (Jesus), suffered, died, and became undead before rising to Heaven. This torturing and killing of Gods only begotten son, whom He dearly loves, was the only way by which people could be saved and go to Heaven.

Nevermind the ulimitedly heavy rock or the square circle. The actual paradox is that an omnipotent God has only one son who is at once God and not-God. God (the Father) loves his son, but has him tortured and killed, because that is the only way we can be saved.

Christian theology contradicts Gods omnipotence with His having no option other than to torture and kill His beloved only son in order to save us.

On the other hand, in Caitanya Caritamrta, Lord Caitanya tells Vasudeva Datta that Krishna can liberate a whole universe of souls without any obstacle or sacrifice on His devotees part.

Preaching means to meet within an unfavourable environment those who are inimical,innocent and neutral.As a younger devotee i was always verbally attacked by the Christians and had to learn how to discriminate, those who were innocent and open to the eternal word of god in the form of Santana dharma.My senior devotee sankirtan leader trained me to be sincere and krishna would empower me which he regularly did .Hence when those experienced devotees told me to be averse to the demonsand keep away from their bewildering association.Srila Prabhupada refers to his unique preaching rasa as chop ,chop chop style .....demons and devotees.Yes all these kaitava dharmas ,cheating religious appear dominant and to a degree important within the prison house of durga but the advanced preacher is not cheated into taking their conditioned logic and sentiment seriously.Now some thirty years later, the hare krishna movement is accepted as saintly and as genuine spiritualists whose reputation in new Zealand and Australia is first class.However the christians are tolerated at best and usually ignored,while their numbers have seriously dwindled along with there sincerity of purpose.

Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.

[quote][cite] sri_govinda_das:[/cite]Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.[/quote]???

>Pandu:The actual paradox is that an omnipotent God has only one son who is at once God and not-God. God (the Father) loves his son, but has him tortured and killed, because that is the only way we can be saved.

Afaik, they make a difference between the begotten son and created sons (us).
Guru is also God and non-God at the same time. Imho, this is the solution for this apparent conundrum.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Baker: Agreed. Tarko apratisthah. But sastra is pratisthah.[/quote]

[br]Im not sure I understand. I didnt mean to make light of philosophy and scriptural proofs. I realize the objection that I have mentioned against the paradox of the stone is a simplistic one, as it is tailored to the "average Western atheist".

[br]I wonder though how a paradox or a problem earns itself the relevance of being objected to with scriptural proofs, as opposed to using merely logical or empirical proofs, or just plain common sense to object it.

Srila bhaktisiddanta saraswati thakur commented that krishna is the supreme autocrat,whose desire and will is bereft of the influence of the material nature.Hence krishna is able to perform the impossible as a regular everyday occurrence.Bhisma in an attempt to broker a compromise, once told duryodhana that krishna could make a world for him to rule,while simultaneously allowing the pandavas to rule within this world they were presently within.Hence both would be successful in their desires.However duryodhana refused, being envious he could not tolerate that the pandavas would enjoy at all.As a result he chose to follow his sad lower nature to eventual destruction and defeat.However bhisma new the unlimited nature of krishna to see his devotees prosper when they attempt to try and please his sublime desire to encourage devotional service.

Baker: It may earn a relevance by its popularity, i.e. many versions of replies. To me, to give a Vedic reply seems natural. And Vedic means sastric. Nothing wrong with anumana when properly applied but its inconclusive.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] sri_govinda_das:[/cite]Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.[/quote]???[/quote]

[br]As for seeing no conflict of interest and purpose when practicing two religious traditions - that is something I can relate to, at least to some extent.[br]
[br]When I first distanced myself from Christianity years ago, I looked into other spiritual and philosophical paths. I considered myself a "failed Christian" who just had to fill her need for spirituality somehow, while all along I firmly believed that Jesus is the only path to salvation and that I will burn in hell for all eternity because I rejected him. I saw this as an unquestionable given.[br]
[br]My first year of attempts of practicing Krishna consciousness have been the same: I considered my chanting, keeping the regulative principles, studying scriptures, having pictures of Krishna and so on as "just another pagan thing that I am doing", just another wrong thing, that I am idol worshipper, while I also firmly believed that the Christian doctrine is right, the one and only right one, and that I will burn in hell for all eternity.[br]

[br]This being so internally torn and split up into two opposing camps came naturally to me, it actually still does.[br]

[br]Although for the last several months, I have become haunted by the sentence "Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead", and things have been going really bad. Its as if I had never felt the weight of Christianity as much as I do now.[br]

[br]For some time, I was involved with Buddhism. Ive known people who considered themselves "Christian Buddhists" or "Buddhist Christians", they somehow merged the two religious traditions.[br]
[br]And the of course the mixing of New Age and Christianity.
(Another group are Western atheists who are atheistic in regard to Christianity; they fervently maintain Christian standpoints, even if just to disagree with them, but they dont move past them, their worldview is actually defined by Christianity.)[br]

[br]In short, there seems to be a pattern where someone with a Christian background takes on an additional interest in spirituality, but basically still considers themselves a Christian or that Christianity has the monopoly on truth.[br]

> This being so internally torn and split up into two opposing camps came naturally to me, it actually still does.

Theres no essential contradiction between them. Theyre two parallel bhakti traditions. One of the common signs is vertical U-shaped tilak, one of the Vignon markings. Take a good look at the picture of Dafni Pantokrator:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Christ_pantocrator_daphne1090-1100.jpg
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/MANTON94.PDF

Therere other common things as well. I must have posted these here before.

Theres also a devotional Buddhism called Pure Land. Otoh, Southern atheistic Buddhism is incompatible with Vaisnavism, PLB, and Christianity. Ditto for New Age. Its based on impersonalism/atheism.

One groups monopoly on truth is clearly refuted in John 10:16.

My new freind baker ,when i married ten years ago i chose a wonderful christian lady who had never met krishnas servants.She found our culture extremely bewildering and differcult.She just told me i was weird because we were so reserved.She has just informed me that also the devotees are not very open and forth coming also.So your mind is like a wife,in that one must always preach to your wife always.....so we should preach to our lower nature,. careful to see the practical and positive light of devotional service.
That sanatana dharma,or devotional service is the intrinsic nature of the soul,that is that we are meant to serve.It is merely who are we intending to give service to?As srila Prabhupada suggests either dog or god?We must give service.Hence once you are free from this inability to perceive the mercy of krishna everywhere you will indeed see the devotional nectar which is indeed available everywhere once we receive the mercy of an advanced devotee.

As krishna informs us within bhagavad gita,sa evayam maya te dya,yogah proktah puratanah,bhakto si me sakha ceti rahasyam hy etad uttamam.......chapter4 verse3....because arjuna was his devotee as well as his freind therefore krishna is telling arjuna that he is able to understand the transendental mystery of this science.This personally seems to possibly be your problem baker you need at least some guidance from an older devotee.On pariprashnena .com , my personal opinion is that the devotee called Phani is very expert and capable....However much depends on krishna within your heart and who he gives guidance to give the unique knowledge you personally require...hare krishna

[quote][cite] sri_govinda_das:[/cite] i married ten years ago i chose a wonderful christian lady who had never met krishnas servants.She found our culture extremely bewildering and differcult.[/quote] Is it some sort of experimental conclusion. Just because one Christian thinks it is not compatible, and even if most Christians think that way, it does not proof that it is. The only incompatibility is the fact that their acharya (Christ) is not teaching all the aspects of prayojana.
[br][br]
So you can say it is as compatible as say Madhva or Sri sampradaya for example. But is it fully compatible, no. Have we borrowed a lot from Sri and Madhva for preaching - sure we did! So did we with some Christian concepts (even the Divine Grace or Godhead are the words borrowed from that tradition) and we often find so much in common, with no exception for Bridal mysticism of Christianity. A friend wrote MA on parallelism of Vishvanatha Cakravartis workSri Madhurya Kadambini to Christian thought on all stages. It is however not fully compatible at the higher stages.
[br][br]
But because some Christians find it compatible we say it is compatible. In fact practicing GV does not stop one being a good Christian. Surprisingly if you follow Mallika way you can even remain Muslim and follow all the basics of GV, no need to eat meat. However if you start practicing niskincana bhakti, it is more then likely that you will have to appreciate the differences as outlined in the BRS by Sri Rupa. Out of all current GV devotees notable exemption is Bhaktiananda Goswami, while clearly Kirtanananda, Radhanath and Bhaktitirtha Swamis are also very close in this regard too, as they will put emphasis on the chanting of the Names of God as supreme, on compassion and universalism of Love, and would cite equally from Biblical and Gaudiya sources. On the other hand those who follow the principles of raga-marga will see a substantial gap, not in the sambhanda jnana or even on abhideya aspects, but in the following a particular ragatimika bhakta and the mood of intensity. It is this following that actually signifies the core difference.
[br][br]

There are of course saffron Vedic nationalists, who would deride anything based on Western or Semitic roots, but we are not talking about Swamis and Prabhus influenced by saffron politics or Vedic idealism here;-)

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> This being so internally torn and split up into two opposing camps came naturally to me, it actually still does.

Theres no essential contradiction between them. Theyre two parallel bhakti traditions.[/quote]
[br]I simply fail to see this.

[br]To me, they are two fiercely competing paths, mutually exclusive, and that as such, I am in effect patently guilty of the second offense against the holy name, along with several others.

[quote][br]One of the common signs is vertical U-shaped tilak, one of the Vignon markings. Take a good look at the picture of Dafni Pantokrator:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Christ_pantocrator_daphne1090-1100.jpg
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/MANTON94.PDF[br][/quote]
[br]I can barely see those markings.

[quote][br]Therere other common things as well. I must have posted these here before.[/quote]
[br]What about the fact that many Christians do not consider these commonalities relevant, and that they think GV is selfishly and deceivingly re-interpreting Christianity?

[quote][br]One groups monopoly on truth is clearly refuted in John 10:16.[/quote]
[br]??

Is a ford compatible with a ferrari?How about a duck with a swan?In a strick sense how can we possible compare christianity,a materially motivated kaitava dharma to the pure unmotivated devotional service propounded by sri chaitanya mahaprabhu?Who himself was god and was at a loss himself to deal with the sublime emotions of sri radharanis love for krishna?
Having just studied the lamentable perverted history of the bible after the Emperor Constantine finished his extrapolating,then king james shameful further attempts to divert gods devine will one would naturally bulk that they are equal in any manner .King James was intent to change things because he intended to marry a woman that had already been married.The intrepid emperor Constantine then chose december 25 th ,the unconquerorable sun god ,suryas birth day as the birth day of christ.Thus blending the truths to suit his political agenda.This political pragmatist single handedly destroyed the genuine authenticity of the christian faith to a very large degree.Only three hundred years after the advent of christ he removed the jewish content of the bible while completely altering the

very fabric of christian doctrine.Hence you are trying to compare a disturbed tradition with an extremely intact vaisnava culture.

However putting aside the separate books the bible and bhagavad gita,by intelligence and common sense one usually accepts that which is of a superior nature.On careful inspection one is forced to follow the vedic tradition solely because of its integrity and fullness of vision coupled with an authorized genuine spiritual teacher who is loyal to his sampradaya.Yes they can be compatible,though both are cars....one is a shell of what it once was......badly damaged while the other is a ferrari.

Baker: Fierce competition and damages are products of imperfect followers. Thats all. Im talking about the essence of both bhakti traditions. Without a closer study one fails to see it.

Re tilaks: therere many early icons with them but on Dafni Pantokrator its possibly best visible. Attached is a bigger pic. Manton pictures it very clearly though. One can find tilaks on other artifacts as well, e.g. from Western Africa: http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi1113/html/ch-15.htm

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Baker: Fierce competition and damages are products of imperfect followers. Thats all. Im talking about the essence of both bhakti traditions. Without a closer study one fails to see it.[/quote]

[br]What is one supposed to make of the fierceness and anger with which many Christians present their positions?[br]

[br]Seriously, if a Christian would stab me with a knife right there on the spot, I would not be surprised. To me, the emotion that most Christians that I have met (or the people who call themselves Christians) exhude suggests anger, violence, as if a cold, poisonous wind would blast at me, and so does reading their books. And I am definitely not the only one. To me, there is something cruel and hard about the faces of so many monks, nuns, priests, congregational members - especially when they preach about love. And not only their faces, tone of voice, sometimes, they put this negativity into words as well.[br]

[br]And sure, on some intellectual, philosophical level one can see the similarity in essence in both traditions, and find a way to contextualize the claims of eternal damnantion. [br]

[br]But given the emotion and practice of many of the people who call themselves Christians, those similarities seem completely irrelevant, secondary, anything but essential.[br]
[br]In my experience, those emotions and practice simply seem an integral and important part of their philosophy.[br]

[br]Were you yourself never affected by the emotions that tend to accompany Christian preaching and behavior of Christians in general?[br]

[br]Or if you were, how did you overcome them, so that they didnt negatively affect you anymore?[br]

[br] How can one know the difference between what is mere subjective emotion and imprefect practice accompanying the preaching (and which are as such irrelevant to the philosophy being preached),
and what is the philosophy that is actually being preached?[br]

[br]How can one know that the emotional negativity and (seemingly) imperfet practice accompanying the preaching arent actually part of the philosophy after all?[br]

[quote][br]Re tilaks: therere many early icons with them but on Dafni Pantokrator its possibly best visible. Attached is a bigger pic. Manton pictures it very clearly though. One can find tilaks on other artifacts as well, e.g. from Western Africa: http://www.ou.edu/class/ahi1113/html/ch-15.htm[/quote]

Thank you, I will look out for them.

Baker: This is Kali yuga after all. Therere people who use an ideology to justify their negative character. Jesus disowns such people. Matt 7:21-24

I was lucky to have mostly good experiences with them, speaking mainly of Catholics.

The difference can be known by the results.

If you can find such examples in the behavior of Jesus and Apostles and in early writings of Church Fathers, then you can prove your point. Although Ive seen some of their comments were pretty heavy, its for a purpose (often contending with a heresy). Context has to be considered.

Is Christianity compatible with Gaudiya Vaisnavism?

According to christianity, there is only one life, they burry the dead people, who will rise again only on the day of judgement. Whereas according to Vaisnavism, after the body dies, soul gets another body, according to ones activities in this life. And this circle of moving into different bodies goes on till liberation.

These are totally different philosophies. How can they be compatible?

1 corinthiams15,40,42,44,47,48,49,50 of the divinely inspired bible suggest that you are not this body.......that man has both a material and spiritual body.And that man first goes through the material body and eventually a spiritual body.It is sown a natural body;it is raised a spiritual body.There is a natural body and a spiritual body.......having read several pages of several pages of You mean thats in the bible?...by satyaraja das it is indeed obvious that once the bible was a far more genuine article than it appears in todays form.An would indeed lead its self to some form of appreciation in a more deeper devotional light.

I guess the question now becomes "What is Christianity?"

>How can they be compatible?

The main thing is the devotion to One Supreme Lord. Therere definitely more similarities than differences. When talking with Christians I sometimes ask them - "List differences between Vaisnava and Christian tradition. For every difference Ill give two similarities." So far none accepted this challenge.

One life is a questionable thing since the pre-existence (=before birth) and post-existence (=after death) are supported (though contended by some groups). See our article on Reincarnation already linked here.

Yes, they think the raised body is material yet has a special nature (glorified body). Iow, spiritualized in some vague sense.

I have Satyarajas booklet but read only a translation of some older version. (Therere some problems with it but I didnt check if theyre also in the English version.)

>The main thing is the devotion to One Supreme Lord. Therere definitely more similarities than differences.

Both paths are leading to the supreme Lord so it is natural to have similarities.

>When talking with Christians I sometimes ask them - "List differences between Vaisnava and Christian tradition. For every difference Ill give two similarities." So far none accepted this challenge.

I congratulate you for your courage.

Christianity has a trinity. Father, son and the holy ghost. What is the equivalent of holy ghost in vaishnavism?

I havent read any description of a holy ghost in vaishnava literature so far. Obviously christianity and vaishnavism are two differnet paths. But different doesnt mean that vaishnavism is superior because I am a follower of vaishnavism.

Christianity is different and it has its own beautiful aspects. so why to artificially cloud it with our interpretations and try to make it fall in line with vaishnavism.

Its not about any artificial forced intepretation but discovering genuine similarities. The former would be a waste of time.
Bhaktiananda Maharaj is an expert on the latter and by his mercy I understood these things to some extent.

Holy Ghost is said to dwell in us (1 John 4:4: "...greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world"). Also, Quran says that Allah
resides in the heart. So my uderstanding is that Holy Ghost, Allah and Paramatma are the same Supreme Person.

Mark 1:10: And forthwith coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a dove descending, and remaining on him.

Dove is one of the representations of the Holy Spirit. Another are breath, wind, etc. The word "spirit" itself comes from Latin spirare, to breathe. In Sanskrit the breath or life air is called prana and Lord Paramatma is called Praneshvara (Lord of prana) or Prana-sharira (One whose body is enveloped in prana). This is more elaborately described in Chandogya Upanishad.

"All living entities, moving and nonmoving, receive their vital force, their bodily strength and their very lives from the air. All of us follow the air for our vital force, exactly as servants follow an emperor. The vital force of air is generated from the original vital force of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. May that Supreme Lord be pleased with us." (SB 8.5.37)

[quote][cite] sri_govinda_das:[/cite]Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.[/quote]

Cardinals chose the pope, not the archbishops.
But it is an interesting story. Can you elaborate?

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] sri_govinda_das:[/cite]Conversely i had a godbrother who became a follower of ISKCON,while performing the duties of a catholic priest.Eventually he was personally involved in choosing the pope,since he became an arch-bishop.He personally saw no conflict of interest and purpose when he received the mercy of an advanced vaishnava and accepted initiation into our line secretly.[/quote]

Cardinals chose the pope, not the archbishops.
But it is an interesting story. Can you elaborate?[/quote]
That what I thought, but maybe he is talking about the antipope? (sri_govinda_das is from NZ you know)...

Sorry prabhu it was Cardinal of Melbourne....

From Puranas Jesus is considered part of our line ,,,,,born from a virgin.However they no longer have the process as to how become purified.

It is from bhavasya purana,jesus is from sun god planet....Son of god...born of virgin...and is great archarya in our line...

This section of Bhavisya Purana is forged. My short summary is at the bottom of http://connect.krishna.com/node/6437

We actually do not know what parts of what is forged for sure. But the point is that in Christianity jesus christ was not proclaimed God until the 6th century, the Holy trinity was not established as a concept until the 5th century. It is since the 6th c. until now that the concept that he is a divine person who took on "the fully human soul and fully human body" is there. It shows that the divinity of Christ is contrary to the Bhagavad Gita;s concept of divinity of the human soul, in other words when they say, your soul, they actually mean it. However it is not incompatible with us, I guess it is as compatible as say other Vaisnava sampradayas that openly aspire for moksa (in any form including sayuja) and consider this universe and its elements to be not made from Brahman. Even different tattva, what to speak of sadacara, can be compatible in practice. Christians are ritivik ;-( but that does not make them incompatible.

> We actually do not know what parts of what is forged for sure.

Hiltebeitels study gives good hints. Actually, you can see the nonsanskrit words very plainly.

> divine person who took on "the fully human soul

The Catholic credos just say JC became fully human. Dont remember anything about human soul.

> when they say, your soul, they actually mean it

Ive made a comparison study: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/JivaSoul.zip

> Christians are ritivik

Not really, since theres no exact equivalent of diksa. Neither baptism nor confirmation can be compared to diksa. Deacon initiation comes closest, imho.

Orthodox Church has elders (staretz) who fulfil the role of a guru of some sort. That was the standard among Desert Fathers.

Fully human in catolic view means that divine person took on soul and the body of a human. Thier concept of avatara is very close to mayavada concept, when God takes on a body made of blood and bones and is covered by illusion.

Actually it is clear from the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creed2.html

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man",[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".[103]

Compare it with the statement:

The Mayavadis mistakenly assume that when God appears He accepts a material body, just as we have taken this material form in the material world. That kind of thinking is impersonalism, or Mayavada philosophy.

human soul... assumed alludes to the subtle body. See my comparison.
The lack of nara lila knowledge.
Otoh, theyd call our view a variation of Gnostic Docetist heresy (material body only illusory).

I always felt that Gnostic concept is pure mayavada, (the theory of illusion) where as Christianity is just mixed up in it, due to the lack of rasika/relationship aspect of it. In fact any samparadaya that does not have a higher taste or adi-rasa will have some contamination of Mayavada in the tattva, only pure devotees can have proper vision of the Lord everywhere without mayavada contamination.

[quote][cite] dweller-in-peace:[/cite]
Christianity has a trinity. Father, son and the holy ghost. What is the equivalent of holy ghost in vaishnavism?
[/quote]
Although the definitions dont exactly match up, I always though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sounded like Visnu, Brahma, and Siva. Siva is sometimes known for dwelling in ghastly places among ghosts and spirits, but is himself pure and holy. In the matter of Father and Son, Brahma was born from a lotus that grew up from Visnus navel without sexual intercourse. Of course it doesnt match up with Jesus story, but at least the terms sound appropriate.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] dweller-in-peace:[/cite]
Christianity has a trinity. Father, son and the holy ghost. What is the equivalent of holy ghost in vaishnavism?
[/quote]
Although the definitions dont exactly match up, I always though Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sounded like Visnu, Brahma, and Siva. Siva is sometimes known for dwelling in ghastly places among ghosts and spirits, but is himself pure and holy. In the matter of Father and Son, Brahma was born from a lotus that grew up from Visnus navel without sexual intercourse. Of course it doesnt match up with Jesus story, but at least the terms sound appropriate.[/quote]

[br]I didnt have much interaction with christianity, so I dont know much about their practices but story of Jesuss birth feels very similar like Karna was born. Karna was born from virgin Kunti, and Jesus was born from virgin Marry without any sex due to some divine interaction.[br]

[br]And just recently, one christian lady was trying to preach to me on the street. She told me somethings about passover. I had no idea what passover was. Then she explained that it was some bread which was offered to God but you have to be baptized to eat that passover. It felt very similar to our concept of prasadam, but the difference was to eat prasadam one need not to baptized into hare krsna.[br]

The Karna story is very similar to Mosess story. Moses means one pulled from water.

Passover is the Jewish Pesach. The bread is a Christian substitution for lamb. Since Jesus introduced this bread and wine system to his followers, they allow it only to the Church members, i.e. baptized ones. But the concept that the bread in the form of a host is the body of God-the-Son is the same as the concept of prasadam.

This is related both to this thread and to SS thread:

http://logismoitouaaron.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-we-hide-our-brothers-fault-god.html

>> VEDA:Heres something about the Stone paradox. Comments welcome.
[br]--
[br]Can God create a stone so heavy He cant lift? (Paradox of the stone)
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/agnosticism.htm#5
[br]
[br]

I was reading in the Bhagavatam and came across this:
[br][br]
Verse:[br]
Therefore it is best for me to surrender unto His feet, which alone can deliver one from the miseries of repeated birth and death. Such surrender is all-auspicious and allows one to perceive all happiness. Even the sky cannot estimate the limits of its own expansion. [b]So what can others do when the Lord Himself is unable to estimate His own limits?[/b]
[br][br]
From the purport:[br]
It is said in the scriptures, brahma-saukhyauc0u109 u769 tv anantam: spiritual happiness is unlimited. Here it is said that even the Lord cannot measure such happiness. This does not mean that the Lord cannot measure it and is therefore imperfect in that sense. The actual position is that the Lord can measure it, but the happiness in the Lord is also identical with the Lord on account of absolute knowledge. [b]So the happiness derived from the Lord may be measured by the Lord, but the happiness increases again, and the Lord measures it again, and then again the happiness increases more and more, and the Lord measures it more and more, and as such there is eternally a competition between increment and measurement, so much so that the competition is never stopped, but goes on unlimitedly ad infinitum.[/b] Spiritual happiness is u257 nandu257 mbudhi-vardhanam, or the ocean of happiness which increases. The material ocean is stagnant, but the spiritual ocean is dynamic.
http://vedabase.net/sb/2/6/36/[br]
[br]
This seemed like an explicit analogous description-explanation of your solution to the stone paradox.

Thanks, nice find. Ive added this quote to the page.

Prabhupada said that Krishna Consciousness is the post graduate study of religion. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is not a mundane religion. Can something completely transcendental be compared with something mundane? That is the assumption in this question. Personally , I dont think so.

"Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, This Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are pure in heart."... Bhag 1.1.2
Within these various religious groups, it must be recognized those who actually, at least, accept that the Supreme Lord is a person -- however inaccurate their conception of Him may be. This is very commendable in this day and age. So this little spark of personalism is what we must fan, not paying too much attention to their numerous faults and offenses. First let them hear and become purified by sound and later all the rules and regulations can be applied.

After the stone paradox, heres another classic question: What was first - a hen or an egg? Give refs.

I would suggest to start a new thread, to give the topic proper exposure. 8)

Its a minor thing. I just wish to demonstrate that sastra answers this. Anyone?

What do you wish from sastra to demonstrate and why should she do this? ;-)

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Its a minor thing. [/quote]

I disagree. As a member here, I have the privilege to start a new thread. I first offered it to you, but you declined, so I will do it.[br]

[quote][cite] admin:[/cite]A few notes on the forums workings:[br]

Keep in mind that the philosophy of this forum is that the user asks a question opening a thread in the appropriate section and others answer. Each question should be enclosed in a thread so that later others can find it easily.
[br]
From now on we will delete or moderate posts that go astray from the original question or breach the above guidelines.
There is no lack of disk space, so feel free to open as many different questions as you may need.[br]

http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/48/from-the-admin/#Item_29[/quote]

Another danger of membership;-)