© 1998 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 5, 1998 VNN2620 Lord Jesus Christ Is Considered Sadhu BY MAHAKSA DASA EDITORIAL, Dec 5 (VNN) — Counter Rebuttal to Lord Jesus Christ is Brahma? Dear VNN readers. Haribol. First of all, I beg forgiveness for abusing editorial privilege VNN has afforded me by offering counter rebuttal here. The VNN Forums are more suitable for exchange of dialogue. That said, I do not wish to defend the article titled "Lord Jesus Christ is Brahma" the article should stand as it is. I do wish to discuss criteria for knowing fact from fiction in spiritual matters. Guru, Shastra, Sadhu. What are these terms? Let us analyze Sadhu. This term refers to accepted authorities of the past as well as those with us today. The writer of the rebuttal acknowledges the fact that Lord Jesus Christ is an authority on the subject of the goal of life, that is, to dovetail one's will with the Will of the Supreme Person by rendering loving service. This acknowledgment is properly based on the fact that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura clearly depict Lord Jesus Christ as Vaisnava, one who worships the Supreme Source of all energies. Thus, Lord Jesus Christ is considered sadhu. When Sadhu teaches, the teachings become shastra. In so-called Christianity, scripture stops after the Council of Trent votes on canonical list. Paul's letters to his disciples are for some obscure reason included, yet the writings of Origin, Mary of Magdalia, Didymous Thomas, Therese Avila and others are excluded forever. Anyone attempting to add to this idea of scripture are cursed with horrible plagues and other misfortune. Shastra as accepted by the Vaisnava community is not at all similar. The works of the Goswamis of Vrndavana, the songs of Srila Narottama dasa and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, and the Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami purports are just as valid as the original Veda, and are even accepted as more valid due to the extra benefit being touched by the lips of such saintly persons. Lord Jesus Christ is not bound up by the small-minded councils of those of ulterior motives seeking to place limitations on His mission. As described above, His words, as sadhu, can and must be accepted as shastra. He appears to do what He says He is doing, His Father's Business. He is not here to spread the Mormon philosophy of attaining His post as creator. As Lord Brahma discovered in His meditations, instructed by Sri Chaitaguru Sesa Balarama, that a Superior Being exists beyond the creator, Lord Jesus Christ, too, takes His disciples beyond the creator, to the Lotus Feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When His disciples asked Him how they can know if He is Who He says He is, Lord Jesus Christ replies that only by doing the will of the Supreme Father can one truly know, all else is just sentiment. There are no quotes from Vaisnava literature pertaining to Lord Jesus Christ, but as far as the statement that Srila Bhaktivinode would surely have used "Lord Jesus Christ is Brahma" platform as a preaching tool to convert Christians, this is much worse speculation than I was accused of, because Christians are mostly mayavadis who think that the Son has merged with the Father. Mormons who desire His post are better situated in this regard. Lord Jesus Christ does not emphasize His position as creator because His Mission is to glorify He Who sent Him, the Supreme Lord. Before continuing this article, let me say that I have no intention of convincing anyone that Lord Jesus Christ is Lord Brahma. All articles presented on Sri Jatayu, the Vulture King website are meant for stimulating the reader in regard to the Absolute truth of sanatana-dharma. The article of Lord Jesus Christ Katha is not for mayavada Christian consumption, as mentioned above, I do not bother with smartas or mayavadis. This article was written for Vaisnavas who choose to accept Lord Jesus Christ as He is, and to appreciate His teachings of development of Love of God in reciprocation to the Love he indiscriminately bestows on us all. The author of the rebuttal admits that he is not a student of His teachings, therefore, shastra, as defined above as teachings of sadhu, may not be of value, nor would be convincing. Guru, the Lord in the heart, does not verify to him, so his rejection of Lord Jesus Christ's position as creator is accepted as valid. I write the following paragraph paraphrasing accepted Vaisnava literature as example of how the dynamics of Vaisnavism allows for this without resulting in fighting, condescension, name-calling, and requiring that disagreeing parties seek out a siksa to point to a straight and narrow path. The similarity if ideas is quite visible. As the freshly published volumes of Srila Prabhupada's translation of Sri Chaitanya Charitamrta were made available, I was quite interested in His citations of Gaura Ganodesa Dapika describing how famous previous associates of the Supreme Lord incarnated themselves to take part in Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Samkirtana Party. Even to this day, my interest in this pastime seems to increase, so much so that I hope some day some Bengali scholar will present this work to the English speaking world. All Vaisnavas accept Sri Srivasa as Narada Muni, all accept Haridas Thakura as Lord Brahma, Sri Adwaita is Maha Visnu, Ramananda Raya is Nara and Arjuna. (Please excuse my memory lapse due to old age.) Prahlada Maharaja is depicted as another associate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, yet this is not accepted by a great bonafide Vaisnava acarya. Is Gaura Ganodesa Dapika nonsense speculative literature? Absolutely not. Is Sri Vaisnava Acarya who disagrees with the point rejecting shastra? Absolutely not. Fights and name calling do not break out, schisms and heresies are not declared. Why? Because sanatana-dharma is not at all jeopardized by the disagreement, in fact, just the opposite occurs, everybody tastes the nectar of sweet Krsna Katha, ever increasing, ever fresh, Gaura Ganodesa Dapika stands, Sri Vaisnava Acarya stands, no problem. I do not "wish" that Lord Jesus Christ is the creator, He is not only as He is, He is indirectly verified as such by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. The word "lord" is not used in connection with ordinary beings, and is not even used in describing non-visnu-tattwa saints except for Brahma, Lord Siva and a few other exceptional saints such as the mahajana Lord Yamaraja, yet both authorities use the words "Lord Jesus Christ". As far as preaching Lord Jesus Christ, these two scholars had no pressing need, preaching Lord Jesus Christ has been going on for two millennia. What they do preach is to invoke westerners to accept sanatana-dharma, which automatically enhances appreciation for not only the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ, but the Vaisnava Acaryas as well. Guru< Shastra, Sadhu is the absolute criteria for understanding sanatana-dharma from the temporary dharmas, but the criteria must be understood as well. Is Srila Prabhupada's guideline of sixteen rounds a day not valid because Srila Bhaktivinode requires His disciples to chant 64 rounds? Sadhus do not agree, where does that leave us? Adhira? Narada Muni tells Vedavyasa that His shastra is inadequate, does Srila Vyasadeva throw away the Veda? Gurudeva tells Arjuna to kill, even kill Vaisnava mahajanas, but same Gurudeva tells Lord Jesus Christ and Haridasa Thakura to die at the hands of miscreant assassins. Contradictions? No, in all cases, sanatana-dharma is not abridged in the least. Guru, Shastra, Sadhu warns against instructing the faithless. Lord Jesus Christ warns against casting pearls to swine. Srila Prabhupada does not instruct those who approach Him in a challenging mood. If someone is surprised at hearing about the connection of loving exchange between Lord Jesus Christ and Sri Govinda, this is quite understandable. The true Christians who have had the great fortune of association of Sri Vaisnava Acarya are not at all surprised. But those who think Lord Jesus Christ is ordinary and insignificant cannot be very pleasing to Sri Govinda, especially after hearing From Sri Gurudeva that He is Vaisnava and empowered representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For this reason and for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ's teachings may not be appropriate for a Vaisnava website dealing in more familiar teachings, I refrain from revealing who I heard from, scriptural authority, etc. Perhaps, in the future, further discussion will take place of Sri Jatayu website for those of such interest, including helpful web links, etc. I do not take offense at the rebuttal article, I actually liked it very much. We should always question before allowing things into our ears. My reference to Lord Jesus Christ is not concoction, I accept Him as Sadhu, I accept His teachings as heard from His bonafide representatives as shastra, and Sri Chaitagurudeva, diksa and siksas all verify. I ask no one to believe my articles, no disciples are dependent on my mercy (although I am bound to save them on behalf of my Guru Maharaja). The articles are not perfect, yet if one is encouraged to dive deeper into the reality of sanatana-dharma because they have read, it is to the credit of Sri Gurudeva, not my own. Again, I ask forgiveness from VNN staff for abusing the privileges afforded me. I request those who wish to debate this and other articles to utilize the wonderful VNN Forums for this purpose. There are lively spiritual beings residing there, no holds barred (in accordance with reasonable Vaisnava etiquette). Lots of intelligent dialogue. See Ya'll there. Please accept my humble obeisances and all glories to the assembled devotees. Hare Krsna, ys, Mahaksadasa About the Author | Other VNN Stories by this Author Comment on this Story This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET05-2620.html
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
