Ask a Hare Krsna a question

[PietroPaolo]

Since hell is taught by both religions, who am I to say it doesn’t exist? I accept the existence of hell. As far as Jesus Christ being the only way to God, at this point I am not prepared to agree or disagree. I am not here as an official spokesperson of any “one-way.” But I see more to agree upon to disagree with. Christianity has the Holy Trinity and Mary. Orthodox Hinduism has Krishna, Chaitanya, Nityananda and Radha.

What, to you, are the biggest differences between what Catholics believe and what you believe? Why are you not a Catholic? What keeps you from joining the Church?

 

[jerry_joseph]

First, thank you very much for the video. I have bookmarked it. I am sorry you don’t like the "multi-God view. Spiritually speaking, “multi” doesn’t necessarily detract from oneness and I use the word in that sense.

Thank you very much

 

[reb108]

Ok thanks, that’s very interesting.

Are there historical evidences (in books, articles that I could read) that point to the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita, and/or Krishna’s incarnation? I’d definitely be interested in reading that (I’m in a “seeking” religious mode now, and have been exploring the faith of some of my family/ancestors).

Yes I know that it isn’t an ISKCON related temple, just thought I’d mention it (if you’re interested, here’s a short video showing the NYC Ganesh temple (I find it very peaceful) and a Ganesh festival recently).

So the focus in ISKCON is on Krishna, and not other deities?

Also, what is the Hare Krishna view on what happens after death? If it’s reincarnation, then what’s the ultimate “end” for the soul?

What is the relationship between Vishnu and Krishna? From what I understand, “mainstream Hindus” view Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu.

Thanks!

Dear Living Waters 7, There are so many translations of the Bhagavad-gita that miss the original intent of the actual speaker of the Gita. This is where the “Bhagavad-gita As It Is” shines. Since you ask, this is my suggestion. The history is there along with other information you would most likely find interesting. Yes, ISKCON’s focus is on Radha/Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Nityananda. The ultimate end for the soul is loving devotional service. Serving God is the soul’s default setting and the soul can only find eternal happiness serving God. However, there is the realm of hell which we want to avoid. Right? Vishnu is not “God the Father.” “The Father” is Krishna. Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna. “Mainstream Hindus” need to read the “Srimad-bhagavatam” where the proper understanding is given. Radha-Krishna is a much nicer portrait of the Godhead.

 

[reb108]

Are you suggesting Krishna and Christ are the same?

Although the Godhead (Christ, God and the Holy spirit are individually different but fully God), I am suggesting that the Godhead is known differently by different names, by different people who live and worship God on earth. Krishna and Christ are part of this same Godhead.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Dear Living Waters 7, There are so many translations of the Bhagavad-gita that miss the original intent of the actual speaker of the Gita. This is where the “Bhagavad-gita As It Is” shines. Since you ask, this is my suggestion. The history is there along with other information you would most likely find interesting. Yes, ISKCON’s focus is on Radha/Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Lord Nityananda. The ultimate end for the soul is loving devotional service. Serving God is the soul’s default setting and the soul can only find eternal happiness serving God. However, there is the realm of hell which we want to avoid. Right? Vishnu is not “God the Father.” “The Father” is Krishna. Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna. “Mainstream Hindus” need to read the “Srimad-bhagavatam” where the proper understanding is given. Radha-Krishna is a much nicer portrait of the Godhead.

Thanks. I actually own the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (a friend of mine had lent it to me way back in high school, never gave it back (and she never asked for it back!) . Maybe I should start reading it.

But what I’m wondering about is if you have read any books or articles, outside of scriptures, that demonstrate the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita, as well as the incarnation of Krishna (sort of like asking for books and articles that demonstrate the historicity of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon). Not sure what you meant by “the history is there”, if by “there” you mean in the As It Is translation, or just “out there”. But yeah, I’m wondering about outside of the scriptures (i.e. apologetic, scholarly works that show historical evidences). Thanks again.

 

[reb108]

What, to you, are the biggest differences between what Catholics believe and what you believe? Why are you not a Catholic? What keeps you from joining the Church?

It says in the Holy Bible that with God all things are possible. I have always loved that. Why am I not a Catholic? Because I find it too exclusive. Take for example four different countries who speak four totally different languages. And yet, within their particular societies and culture they all get together in their own way and construct buildings. I am not about to say that only those people who speak this language can construct buildings. This is why I have a difficult time becoming a Catholic or Christian. How can I say that only people who speak English can build buildings? Tell that to people who only speak French. So I would have to “join” a group of people who proclaim only one way, one language, one religion. However, I have the greatest respect for Catholics. The part(s) I cannot agree with, I just ignore, but instead concentrate on the absolute beauty that is found in the Catholic religion. These parts have brought me such great happiness. As far as the biggest differences, for me, this is within the realm of: God the Father. Catholics seem to be stuck on, “God the Father exists but is unknowable,” whereas what the followers of Krishna bring to the “table of divine knowledge” is a wealth of knowledge about God. But instead of respecting and listening to this (“there is so much more to know”), most Christians reject Krishna with harsh words. Because they are taught that God the Father is unknowable. Only because you have asked, I am expressing my thoughts here. Even though there are difference, this doesn’t mean that I don’t love Catholicism. Within the realm of the humble and simple Saints within the Catholic religion, I don’t find a rejecting spirit. Only love of God. I find what they have written down over the centuries completely uplifting. Right now I am reading the “Diary” by the Polish Saint, Maria Faustina Kowalska. I would recommend this book to everyone: Krishna, Catholic, etc. Actually I have read more than a dozen Catholic books.

 

[reb108]

Thanks. I actually own the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (a friend of mine had lent it to me way back in high school, never gave it back (and she never asked for it back!) . Maybe I should start reading it.

But what I’m wondering about is if you have read any books or articles, outside of scriptures, that demonstrate the historicity of the Bhagavad Gita, as well as the incarnation of Krishna (sort of like asking for books and articles that demonstrate the historicity of the Bible, or the Book of Mormon). Not sure what you meant by “the history is there”, if by “there” you mean in the As It Is translation, or just “out there”. But yeah, I’m wondering about outside of the scriptures (i.e. apologetic, scholarly works that show historical evidences). Thanks again.

You might go to Amazon and search: “Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race.” And yes, inside the pages of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, in his purports the author give a lot of history.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Although the Godhead (Christ, God and the Holy spirit are individually different but fully God), I am suggesting that the Godhead is known differently by different names, by different people who live and worship God on earth. Krishna and Christ are part of this same Godhead.

Are you saying that Krishna and Christ were the same person? What is the basis for this belief? How do you contend with a Jesus who would have abhored Hinduism?

 

[meltzerboy]

Are you saying that Krishna and Christ were the same person? What is the basis for this belief? How do you contend with a Jesus who would have abhored Hinduism?

How do you know Jesus would have abhorred Hinduism, which, after all, believes in one G-d?

 

[PietroPaolo]

It says in the Holy Bible that with God all things are possible. I have always loved that. Why am I not a Catholic? Because I find it too exclusive. Take for example four different countries who speak four totally different languages. And yet, within their particular societies and culture they all get together in their own way and construct buildings. I am not about to say that only those people who speak this language can construct buildings. This is why I have a difficult time becoming a Catholic or Christian. How can I say that only people who speak English can build buildings? Tell that to people who only speak French. So I would have to “join” a group of people who proclaim only one way, one language, one religion. However, I have the greatest respect for Catholics. The part(s) I cannot agree with, I just ignore, but instead concentrate on the absolute beauty that is found in the Catholic religion. These parts have brought me such great happiness. As far as the biggest differences, for me, this is within the realm of: God the Father. Catholics seem to be stuck on, “God the Father exists but is unknowable,” whereas what the followers of Krishna bring to the “table of divine knowledge” is a wealth of knowledge about God. But instead of respecting and listening to this (“there is so much more to know”), most Christians reject Krishna with harsh words. Because they are taught that God the Father is unknowable. Only because you have asked, I am expressing my thoughts here. Even though there are difference, this doesn’t mean that I don’t love Catholicism. Within the realm of the humble and simple Saints within the Catholic religion, I don’t find a rejecting spirit. Only love of God. I find what they have written down over the centuries completely uplifting. Right now I am reading the “Diary” by the Polish Saint, Maria Faustina Kowalska. I would recommend this book to everyone: Krishna, Catholic, etc. Actually I have read more than a dozen Catholic books.

Catholics don’t say only people who can speak English can build buildings. Catholics say, to use your analogy, that only God can build buildings and He did so when He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and built the only building built by God, the Catholic Church. All other religions are man made and as such cannot reach God. Imagine a mountain with many different paths leading up it. These are all paths created by different human cultures urged on by the natural desire for the human soul to unite with its Creator. But, because God is infinite and we are finite, none of our paths can ever, in principal, reach the summit. But God is Love and He blazes one path straight to bottom and anyone who wants to can use this path to reach God. This path is the Cross of Christ and the only way to access it is the Holy Catholic Church, the Body of Christ on Earth outside of which there is no salvation (of course not all outside the Church are therefore damned).

And the idea that the Father is unknowable in Catholicism simply isn’t true. We believe the Father is known through the Son in the Holy Spirit. To know Christ is to know the Father as the Gospel says:
JesusChrist:

"Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? - John 14:9

Most Christians reject Krishna with harsh words because no one can come to God through him (or anyone else save Christ) not because we think we can’t know the Father.

God bless.

 

[PietroPaolo]

How do you know Jesus would have abhorred Hinduism, which, after all, believes in one G-d?

Jesus came as YHWY moving amongst His people. He taught belief not just in one God, as if the cult of Amen-Ra would have been supported by Jesus b/c it taught belief in one false god rather than many false gods, but in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Christ would have abhorred Hinduism because He is the Truth and Hinduism is false. Show me something Christ said that makes you believe He would have supported Hinduism.

 

[reb108]

Are you saying that Krishna and Christ were the same person? What is the basis for this belief? How do you contend with a Jesus who would have abhored Hinduism?

Catholics teach that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same Godhead, but at the same time different personalities. So speaking of Christ, we are speaking about the one Godhead. And since God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are the same person, in one sense, it doesn’t make too much sense to put one above the other. Krishna is simply another name for God in the above description. But probably you don’t want God to be called Krishna (all attractive) and I can appreciate that. So I don’t make a big deal out of any of this. I can worship God as the Catholic God and I can worship God as Krishna. All the descriptions of the Catholic “God” are wonderful and worthy of worship. The additional knowledge that Krishna brings to the Godhead is also wonderful and worthy of worship. Hinduism is a big topic that contains many beliefs and right, I am sure Jesus wouldn’t endorse them all.

 

[reb108]

This is from a posting just above from PietroPaolo

Through the Eyes of Jesus. by Alan Ames: Jesus speaking: “I am the Light for the world; I save all who want to be saved, be they Jew or gentile, for the Father created all peoples and loves all peoples, and I, as His Son, share that love.”

 

[PietroPaolo]

This is from a posting just above from PietroPaolo

Through the Eyes of Jesus. by Alan Ames: Jesus speaking: “I am the Light for the world; I save all who want to be saved, be they Jew or gentile, for the Father created all peoples and loves all peoples, and I, as His Son, share that love.”

I asked for something said by Jesus and you offer me a quote from a book written in the Twentieth Century. Am I supposed to believe this was actually said by Christ? If so why? Further, the quote doesn’t show that Christ would have supported Hinduism anyhow.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Catholics teach that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same Godhead, but at the same time different personalities. So speaking of Christ, we are speaking about the one Godhead. And since God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are the same person, in one sense, it doesn’t make too much sense to put one above the other. Krishna is simply another name for God in the above description. But probably you don’t want God to be called Krishna (all attractive) and I can appreciate that. So I don’t make a big deal out of any of this. I can worship God as the Catholic God and I can worship God as Krishna. All the descriptions of the Catholic “God” are wonderful and worthy of worship. The additional knowledge that Krishna brings to the Godhead is also wonderful and worthy of worship. Hinduism is a big topic that contains many beliefs and right, I am sure Jesus wouldn’t endorse them all.

Your understanding of the Trinity does not reflect Catholic belief. We do not believe Jesus and the Father are one person with different personalities, we believe they are three persons while being one God. It is an important difference.

 

[reb108]

Catholics don’t say only people who can speak English can build buildings. Catholics say, to use your analogy, that only God can build buildings and He did so when He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary and built the only building built by God, the Catholic Church. All other religions are man made and as such cannot reach God. Imagine a mountain with many different paths leading up it. These are all paths created by different human cultures urged on by the natural desire for the human soul to unite with its Creator. But, because God is infinite and we are finite, none of our paths can ever, in principal, reach the summit. But God is Love and He blazes one path straight to bottom and anyone who wants to can use this path to reach God. This path is the Cross of Christ and the only way to access it is the Holy Catholic Church, the Body of Christ on Earth outside of which there is no salvation (of course not all outside the Church are therefore damned).

I would agree that the only “Holy Church” is the Catholic Church, built by God. I also agree that the only Holy Vaishnava Temple is the Gaudia structure of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I would not say that God is limited and can only build one Holy Structure, as you have above. This limits God, does it not? I would not say that all other religions are man-made. This is a great insult and puts your soul in danger. I believe that the Catholic path is Holy and perfect. But this doesn’t mean there cannot be another Holy and perfect path. I do not believe that the God of the Catholic faith is limited. I agree that the only way to access the path of Christ is through Christ and His Holy Church. But I am reluctant to say that the only Holy Church is the Catholic Church. I would fear for my soul, making such an insulting statement. I would rather say that the path to Jesus is the Cross of Christ (love, devotion and mercy) which can be beautifully and successfully accessed by the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I would agree that the only “Holy Church” is the Catholic Church, built by God. I also agree that the only Holy Vaishnava Temple is the Gaudia structure of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I would not say that God is limited and can only build one Holy Structure, as you have above. This limits God, does it not? I would not say that all other religions are man-made. This is a great insult and puts your soul in danger.

I never said that God was limited, you did. I said God founded one Church, the Catholic Church (and before that He founded the People of Israel) all other religions are man made. It is no insult to God to say a religion is man made. Are you saying all religions are from God? Are you saying God couldn’t found only one Church? Isn’t that limiting God?

I believe that the Catholic path is Holy and perfect. But this doesn’t mean there cannot be another Holy and perfect path.

Yes it does mean that there cannot be another Holy and perfect path, because the Catholic path clearly teaches there is no other Holy and perfect path. If the Catholic path is true, then no other path can be. If other paths are true, then the Catholic path isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, try as you might. You can admire certain aspects of Christ and Catholicism but you clearly don’t think the Catholic Church is true, as she teaches things you disagree with.

I do not believe that the God of the Catholic faith is limited. I agree that the only way to access the path of Christ is through Christ and His Holy Church. But I am reluctant to say that the only Holy Church is the Catholic Church. I would fear for my soul, making such an insulting statement. I would rather say that the path to Jesus is the Cross of Christ (love, devotion and mercy) which can be beautifully and successfully accessed by the Holy Catholic Church.

The Cross of Christ is not love, devotion, and mercy but a wooden torture instrument on which Roman soldiers crucified Jesus on in AD 33. Through this Cross all sins can be forgiven, but only if we are willing to accept the forgiveness offered by Christ on His terms not ours.

 

[reb108]

Your understanding of the Trinity does not reflect Catholic belief. We do not believe Jesus and the Father are one person with different personalities, we believe they are three persons while being one God. It is an important difference.

…“we do not believe Jesus and the Father (and Holy Spirit) are one person with different personalities”

…“we believe they are three persons while being one God”

From what I have read, especially the opening pages of the “Mystical City of God,” the God part of the Trinity is given special reverence. Jesus also expresses this reverence for His Father in many ways. That is not to say they are not one God. And yet, people may wonder how 3 can be one. This has been explained by using the example of candles. You have the original candle (God) and this candle was never ignited at some distant point in time, by some long forgotten source. This is the marvel and wonder of God: this candle has always been aflame without ever being lit: “I am that I am.” And God snaps His fingers so to speak and presto, another candle appears and is aflame: Jesus. And God snaps His fingers and presto, another candle appears and is aflame: Holy Spirit. So God can expand Himself and yes, there are 3 persons while being one God. The Saints tell us that there is no difference between the 3 candles. Of course, they tell us other things, too.

 

[PietroPaolo]

…“we do not believe Jesus and the Father (and Holy Spirit) are one person with different personalities”

…“we believe they are three persons while being one God”

From what I have read, especially the opening pages of the “Mystical City of God,” the God part of the Trinity is given special reverence. Jesus also expresses this reverence for His Father in many ways. That is not to say they are not one God. And yet, people may wonder how 3 can be one. This has been explained by using the example of candles. You have the original candle (God) and this candle was never ignited at some distant point in time, by some long forgotten source. This is the marvel and wonder of God: this candle has always been aflame without ever being lit: “I am that I am.” And God snaps His fingers so to speak and presto, another candle appears and is aflame: Jesus. And God snaps His fingers and presto, another candle appears and is aflame: Holy Spirit. So God can expand Himself and yes, there are 3 persons while being one God. The Saints tell us that there is no difference between the 3 candles. Of course, they tell us other things, too.

This isn’t a Catholic understanding of the Trinity. First, the Church doesn’t teach that, in God, somehow One equals Three, the doctrine of the Trinity reveals that there are Three Persons in One God (not one god who is three gods or one person who is three persons which would be contradictory). Second, both the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are co-eternal with the Father. There never was a moment when the Son and the Spirit did not exist. Third, God does not “expand himself” as this would imply some potency in God, who is pure actuality. Forget the candles, they are misleading you. The Father, from all eternity, pours out everything in an act of love upon his beloved Son - holding nothing back, not even His essence. Thus, the Son is true God from true God and He pours back everything in an act of love upon the Father - this love is the Holy Spirit. They are all One God, but they are three different Persons eternally in relationship. It’s a mystery but we can understand it to some small extent.

 

[reb108]

I never said that God was limited, you did. I said God founded one Church, the Catholic Church (and before that He founded the People of Israel) all other religions are man made. It is no insult to God to say a religion is man made. Are you saying all religions are from God? Are you saying God couldn’t found only one Church? Isn’t that limiting God?

You said, " …and built the only building built by God, the Catholic Church. All other religions are man made and as such cannot reach God." This implies that God is limited. It is not an insult to say that a religion is man made but be careful when you say, “ALL OTHER RELIGIONS are man made.” That implies that the saints of other religions are false and liars. You don’t need to imply that. I am not saying all religions are from God. I am not saying that God is not able to establish only one Church. “Isn’t that limiting God?” on my end …If I said that, yes. God is love and mercy and has appeared with that love and mercy in other places that you may not know about. To reach as many souls as possible, God has reached out to mankind in many inconceivable ways

Yes it does mean that there cannot be another Holy and perfect path, because the Catholic path clearly teaches there is no other Holy and perfect path. If the Catholic path is true, then no other path can be. If other paths are true, then the Catholic path isn’t. You can’t have it both ways, try as you might. You can admire certain aspects of Christ and Catholicism but you clearly don’t think the Catholic Church is true, as she teaches things you disagree with.

I may not be able to have it both ways, however, this is not my doing. Anyone who spends 3 years reading the writings of the Catholic Saints cannot deny that Catholicism is a Holy path and have led many to a perfect conclusion. You see, I have taken time out of my life to sit and listen to the Catholic Saints. I have sat for years by their side absorbing their words. I do this daily for hours. I seldom ever miss a day. I am nourished and blessed by their love for me. I am sorry that your path doesn’t allow for more, even though Jesus Himself said that there is so much more. A priest in Mexico once told one of our Krsna priest that, “yes, there is more, but this information can only manifest in the Catholic Church.” So that is a position and I respect it. I guess I am fortunate to have it both ways. What a mystery. As far as what my puny little brain can grasp, that is not going to get me very far. Only mercy has made a difference in my life. And absolutely, there is Catholic mercy. I grab onto it with all my might. And absolutely there is mercy from the God of India.

The Cross of Christ is not love, devotion, and mercy but a wooden torture instrument on which Roman soldiers crucified Jesus on in AD 33. Through this Cross all sins can be forgiven, but only if we are willing to accept the forgiveness offered by Christ on His terms not ours.

Oooops. Sorry.