[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Was Jesus a Pure Devotee?
To my question on alt.hindu on February 27, 1995 as to the what the basis was for saying Jesus was a pure devotee of Krsna, nparker@crl.com (Nathan Parker) replied on Mar 4. Nathan Parker also goes by the name JND. Given below are portions from his post with my reply .
Nathan Parker wrote:
>I know several people will answer your questions, so I will not get into
>detail, as others will do that I am sure. I will just mention some things
>that probably won't get mentioned.
Reply:
You were so sure of yourself, but several people did not answer my questions! You are the only one to have taken up the task. There were comments by Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) and Ken_Stuart (ken@macshasta.com) on Mar. 4. Thanks to all the three. So if you like to mention what you thought others will mention, please do so.
Nathan Parker wrote:
>One is that Jesus' guruparamparA does
>indeed go back to Krishna. This is described in the BhaviShya purANa. He
>is son of surya, and is comming in the paramparA as described in
>Bhagavad-gItA as:
>imam vivasvate yogam
>proktavAn aham avyayam
Reply:
The mention in Bhavishya Purana is new to me. If you happen to know the exact reference in Bhavishya Purana, it will be helpful. However, the critical issue is that I need to hear the authorized commentary of the exact verse in Bhavisya Purana. I can accept that Surya is a pure devotee.
Only after it is established without any doubt that Jesus was a disciple of Surya, the Bhagavad Gita verse that you quote above becomes relevant.
Also of secondary importance is the question whether the son of Surya (taken from your above statements which still needs to be verified) is a pure devotee. A son of a pure devotee need not be a pure devotee.
Nathan Parker wrote:
>I don't believe there is any complete translation of BhaviShya purANa,
>but you can find the sanksrit texts in some big university research
>libraries.
Reply:
Without authorized translation and commentary, I am not in any position to accept Jesus as Pure devotee. I have learnt from Swami Prabhupada not to engage in mental speculation in such matters. Look at the research scholars engaged in mundane research. This research work has no lasting value. This is due to material mind engaged in mental speculation is prone to making error, as pointed out in Bhagavatam and explained very nicely by Acaryas. On the other hand authorized commentaries are still quoted, Adi Sankaracarya (7th century), Ramanujacarya (11th century), Nimbarka (11th century), Madhvacarya (12th century), Caitanya Mahaprabhu (15th century),Vallabhacarya (16th century). Actually, Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself did not write but instructed his disciples headed by the six Goswamis of Vrndavan to write commentaries on the vedic scriptures.
As you can see, even if it can be tracked down in a research library, there is the extra step involved: to place it at the feet of an authorized spiritual master and seek his mercy.
Nathan Parker wrote:
>Yes, such authorities as Bhativinoda Thakur, the purvAcArya of the
>present gaudiya line has made such statements.
Reply:
This information is also new to me. I can recollect Swami Prabhupada mentioning Caintanya Mahaprabhu as an authority in Kali Yuga. Other authorities he mentioned were Lord Siva and Lord Brahma. I do not recollect Swami Prabhupada mentioning Bhaktivinod Thakura as an authority. Bhaktivinod Thakura as a Pure Devotee - yes, that is acceptable.
Aside,
For those who do not know who Bhaktivinod Thakura is, he is the guru of the guru of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who is referred to in my posts as Swami Prabhupada. The guru of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami is also referred to as Swami Prabhupada by some people and his full name is Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Swami Prabhupada. It was Bhaktivinod Thakura's vision that the name of Krsna be spread to every part of the world, that his disciples are trying to follow.
I think there are differences in the definitions of authority and a pure devotee. Swami Prabhupada also a pure devotee, in his translations and commentaries on Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam preached the Caitanya (an authority's) philosophy.
In discussions on vedic philosophy, Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not make any such statements without quoting the scripture. Why would his disciples do? Without authorized comments by Caitanya Mahaprabhu on the Bhavisya Purana what is the basis for Bhaktivinod Thakura to make such statements, if at all he made.
Without proper scriptural reference to the statements by Bhaktivinod Thakura, it becomes really important to know what is the context these statements were made and what were the exact statements (in bengali).
Nathan Parker wrote:
>What Jesus taught the people was a process of purification so that they
> elevate themselves gradually to the absolute platform. Just as what
>Mohammed taught was similarly meant as a gradual process. In BhaviShya
>urANa it mentions in regards to both of these personalities that their
>mission was to teach mleccha dharma. But if one sincerely followed what
>Jesus taught, he would be guided by the Lord to surrender to Him. You can
>see that even Jesus' own disciples did not all follow his instructions,
>theefore what can you expect of people today?
Reply:
I am still not there to discuss these statements from a vedic point-of-view since I am not totally convinced that Jesus was a pure devotee of Krsna.
Nathan Parker wrote:
>But he himself is a definite follow of the Vedas, just as SaNkarAcArya
>has no doSha (fault) for teaching mAyAvAdam, in the same way Jesus has no
>fault for his teachings. This is so because they are carrying out the
>order of the Lord. At that time, when Jesus came, you can see in the
>bible the situation of society. They could not even accept what little he
>told, how then would they ever accept something as pure as the Veda? That
>is why Jesus said he has not told them everything. They were not in a
>situation to be able to understand anything above what he spoke. This is
>the mercy of the Lord, that, even though they refuse to follow Veda, he
>gives them a process to gradually be purified. If one is sincere it may
>take one life, if one is not sincere then iw will take more. It is the
>same with tantra-SAstra, as spoken by Lord Siva to Parvati. Why did Siva,
>a great mahAjana, speak a non vedic philosophy? Tantra does not follow
>the conclusio of the Veda, so it is atheistic, but Siva gives it so that
>those who are not qualified for the Vedic system of varnASrama can still
>somehow gradually advace and become purified.
There is no doubt that Adi Sankaracarya based his mayavadam on Vedas. Question is whether Jesus based his teachings on Vedas. We have to have a scriptural reference explained authoritatively; these things cannot be speculated. There is no discussion of dosha (fault) at this point, from me.
No comment on the rest of Nathan Parker's post.
I am really appreciative of Nathan Parker for taking the time and effort to provide an interesting post which also has substance. I hope to see the other details, that he talks about in his post of March 4, from him also.
Future work:
I will make an attempt to visit research libraries to try and extract the verse talking about Jesus as son of Surya. On my next visit to India, I will seek clarifications to the Bhavisya Purana and the Bhaktivinod Thakuras statements from the different Vedic Maths.
Thanks,
-Eswar Josyula
76142.1306@compuserve.com
