01/25/2006
"In some conversations, Shrila Prabhupada has mentioned the Aquarian Gospel which states that Jesus was in Jagannath Puri. However we cannot accept the Aquarian Gospel as admissible evidence. The Aquarian Gospel is not a Gospel recognized by religious scholars. This pretence of a Gospel is the work of a 20th century American named Levi H. Dowling that he supposedly channeled from the Akashic records in 1908. Of course receiving knowledge via revelation (the Akashic records) is certainly possible, but the Aquarian Gospel fails to pass the test of spirituality. Unfortunately many people confuse the Aquarian Gospel for a Gospel from antiquity when truthfully it is not." Read full article.
Replies: 15 Comments
Posted by Bhakta Ray @ 01/28/2006 12:15 PM PST
Kesavananda dasa
anon has posted on other topics and his style has been quite personal. My style is rarely personal. I made exactly one comment on the arrogance of a statement. It is not a statement about character per se but about what was said. It seems on the other hand that you are making sweeping generalization about my character.Posted by Bhakta Sunil @ 01/28/2006 08:36 AM PST
Prabhus, know for certain that there are many fine scholars who argue well that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle, that it was not derived from the Gospel of Mark (contrary to the recent theorizing of the modernist critics), and that it was
written early, in the late 30s or early 40s (long before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem). So for Tara devi to present this quote (from a person of dubious authenticity and character) as being definitive is misleading and one-sided. Some
'facts' may be facts, but to over-
lay them with one's interpretation and present that as the conclusive truth without looking at all sides of the issue cannot lead us to understanding.
But once again let me return to the
point raised by Alex on the other thread. There are many modernist critics of a similar mentality who say that Srila Veda-Vyasa did not write the Vedas. Well, we weren't there, so how are we to decide?
We can know the truth by listening
to our spiritual teaching authority, Srila Prabhupada, who has told us that Vyasa put the Vedas into writing. Tara devi and her friends should be more cautious
in their efforts, because they may shoot themselves in the foot by damaging faith in Vedic religion as well. Christians have their teaching authority as well, and it has taught from the start that Matthew and John were written by apostolic eyewitnesses to Jesus. Ideas contrary, such as broached in
these blogs, are the propaganda line of modernist criticism which has arisen historically recently riding a wave of atheistic ethos initiated by the French Revolution.
[Dear Editor: please remove my 2 preceding botched posts.]Posted by Bhakta Sunil @ 01/28/2006 08:14 AM PST
A Correction:
My apologies. I meant to claim that
many modernist critics say that Srila Veda-Vyasa did NOT write the Vedas.
Hare KrsnaPosted by Bhakta Sunil @ 01/28/2006 08:08 AM PST
Prabhus, know for certain that there are many fine scholars who argue well that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle, that it was not derived from the Gospel of Mark (contrary to the recent theorizing of the modernist critics), and that it was
written early, in the late 30s or early 40s (long before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem). So for Tara devi to present this quote (from a person of dubious authenticity and character) as being definitive is misleading and one-sided. Some
'facts' may be facts, but to over-
lay them with one's interpretation and present that as the conclusive truth without looking at all sides of the issue cannot lead us to understanding.
But once again let me return to the
point raised by Alex on the other thread. There are many modernist critics of a similar mentality who say that Srila Veda-Vyasa did write
the Vedas. Well we weren't there, so how are we to decide? By listen-
ing to our spiritual teaching authority, Srila Prabhupada, who has told us that Vyasa put the Vedas into writing. Tara devi and her friends should be more cautious
in their efforts, because they may shoot themselves in the foot by damaging faith in Vedic religion as well. Christians have their teaching authority as well, and it has taught from the start that Matthew and John were written by apostolic eyewitnesses to Jesus. Ideas contrary, such as broached in
these blogs, are the propaganda line of modernist criticism which has arisen historically recently riding a wave of atheistic ethos initiated by the French Revolution.Posted by Kesavananda @ 01/28/2006 02:59 AM PST
Whoever Anon is, I have to agree with him.
Anon made two postings on this blog and neither of them smacked of anything offensive. The only thing I find offensive on this blog is Ray's attitude towards the participants.
I humbly reccommend that the Editors close this blog before Ray makes more offenses. As Anon said, this blog has begun to get personal and nasty.Posted by Bhakta Ray @ 01/28/2006 02:41 AM PST
"This blog is becoming less philosophical and too personal and a-vaisnava"
As you have demonstrated with your personal remarks several times on this blog. As you sow, so shall you reap. (The Bible).Posted by Anon @ 01/28/2006 01:18 AM PST
Ray prabhu said -"Yes it is ironic for you to preach respect, toward mothers or otherwise."
Why is it ironic? Did I say something which was disrespectful to you?
This blog is becoming less philosophical and too personal and a-vaisnava.
I throw in the towel!Posted by Bhakta Ray @ 01/27/2006 09:38 PM PST
anon dasa.
Yes it is ironic for you to preach respect, toward mothers or otherwise. However, if a statement is arrogant ,it is arrogant regardless of the gender of the author.
As far as Prabhupada having 'rejected' the scriptures, the only reference I have found in this regard is,
"The úâstras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable."
One can assume that this is tantamount to a rejection, but by the same token, the 'modern people advanced in science and philosophy' also discount the Vedas as mythological.
Prabhupada never had nice things to say about modern scientists in any case. Prabhupada also called Jesus a saktyavesa avatara. Since it has been pointed out that he only knows of Jesus through these same scriptures, then one has to understand their supposed 'rejection' with more cirumspection. Is Prabhupada contradicting himself?Posted by anon @ 01/27/2006 03:31 AM PST
Gauranga Prabhu,
If you want to know more about the Old Testament, I recommend you check out the research of Dr. Israel Finkelstein, a professor at the Tel Aviv University.
Ray prabhu,
It was Prabhupada himself (as well as his own Guru Maharaja and Bhaktivinoda) that called the Bible and Koran 'scriptures of the Yavanas' - are they being sectarian?
Also, I think it would be a bit more becoming to treat Taradevi Mataji with a little more respect (as a mother deserves) rather than denounce her as 'arrogant'. In all circumstances, Srila Prabhupada was always respectful to ladies.Posted by anon @ 01/27/2006 03:11 AM PST
Yes - it was the same Danielou that Srila Prabhhupada spoke to.
He was quite an interesting character.
He wrote about 14 books on Christian theology, was a member of the Academie Francais, held a prominent position at the University of Paris and helped found a successful interfaith group called the Fraternity of Abraham.
He once told friends that - "I am naturally a pagan, and a Christian only with great difficulty."
I guess that explains why he died of a heart-attack in the arms of a 24 year old prostitute at a Parisian brothel in the Rue Dulong in 1974...Posted by Bhakta Ray @ 01/27/2006 03:07 AM PST
I'm not sure why you're addressing Alex who has not posted to this topic yet.
If the point you are trying to make is that the New Testament is a concoction, you have not succeeded. So much early history and religious scripture began as oral tradition passed on from generation to generation. The Gospels were written at least a century after the facts they document. That Christians believe the Gospels were written by individuals rather than a community is irrelevant to the accuracy of their content. Let's not forget the Vedas were also oral tradition before being written down. Academic scholarship is uniformly in agreement that so many of the stories in the Bhagavatam are mythology. The description of creation, for instance, where MahaVisnu lies down in the causal ocean is not literally believed by most commentators. Even many of the stories in the Mahabharata are considered myths. Futhermore the Vedic culture which gave rise to these literatures is quite diluted at present, even in India.
So the mundane religion are not Absolute Truth. That is not a problem. Sanatana dharma means the essence of all religion. Therefore elements of sanatana dharma will be found in each type.
The swan-like paramahamsa can extract milk from water. Krsna is everywhere, so the guru, the truly learned person can find the truth within the flowery inaccuracies of the Bible. Thus Prabhupada did.
"Why hamsa is taken, paramahamsa? Hamsa has the capacity... Hamsa means swan. He has got capacity. If you give to the hamsa milk mixed with water, the hamsa has got the capacity, so it will drink the milk and reject the water. "
Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.18
Mayapur, February 25, 1976
The discounting arrogance of your
statement about mlecchas and yavanas is not in keeping with that vision of the paramahamsa, and its exclusivity smacks of sectarianism.Posted by Gauranga das @ 01/27/2006 12:27 AM PST
PAMHO
"A large number of very recent works are based on contemporary discoveries about Christianity. Among them we find Cardinal Daniélou's name."
Does anyone know, is Cardinal Danielou, the same Cardinal who Srila Prabhupada talked with, recorded on film?
I have to admit as one who sometimes cites the Bible, I thought the New Testament was written by the direct disciples of Jesus.
I never really looked close at the Old Testament either. But I am going to before I continue to use the Bible in my preaching. Thanks Tara Devi Mataji. Please accept my humble respects.Posted by Tara devi @ 01/26/2006 03:32 PM PST
Here Alex please read this. Even Catholic clergy understand that the New Testament is not written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The New Testament is mythology or hersay at best, not fact.
Historical Reminder of Judeo-Christian and
Saint Paul
The majority of Christians believe that the Gospels were written by direct witnesses of the life of Jesus and therefore constitute unquestionable evidence concerning the events high-lighting His life and preachings. One wonders, in the presence of such guarantees of authenticity, how it is possible to discuss the teachings derived from them and how one can cast doubt upon the validity of the Church as an institution applying the general instructions Jesus Himself gave. Today's popular editions of the Gospels contain commentaries aimed at propagating these ideas among the general public.
The value the authors of the Gospels have as eye-witnesses is always presented to the faithful as axiomatic. In the middle of the Second century, Saint Justin did, after all, call the Gospels the 'Memoirs of the Apostles'. There are moreover so many details proclaimed concerning the authors that it is a wonder that one could ever doubt their accuracy. 'Matthew was a well-known character 'a customs officer employed at the tollgate or customs house at Capharnaum'; it is even said that he spoke Aramaic and Greek. Mark is also easily identifiable as Peter's colleague; there is no doubt that he too was an eye-witness. Luke is the 'dear physician' of whom Paul talks: information on him is very precise. John is the Apostle who was always near to Jesus, son of Zebedee, fisherman on the Sea of Galilee.
Modern studies on the beginnings of Christianity show that this way of presenting things hardly corresponds to reality. We shall see who the authors of the Gospels really were. As far as the decades following Jesus's mission are concerned, it must be understood that events did not at all happen in the way they have been said to have taken place and that Peter's arrival in Rome in no way laid the foundations for the Church. On the contrary, from the time Jesus left earth to the second half of the Second century, there was a struggle between two factions. One was what one might call Pauline Christianity and the other Judeo-Christianity. It was only very slowly that the first supplanted the second, and Pauline Christianity triumphed over Judeo-Christianity.
A large number of very recent works are based on contemporary discoveries about Christianity. Among them we find Cardinal Daniélou's name. In December 1967 he published an article in the review Studies (Etudes) entitled. 'A New Representation of the Origins of Christianity: Judeo-Christianity'. (Une vision nouvelle des origines chrétiennes, le judéo-christianisme). Here he reviews past works, retraces its history and enables us to place the appearance of the Gospels in quite a different context from the one that emerges on reading accounts intended for mass publication. What follows is a condensed version of the essential points made in his article, including many quotations from it.
After Jesus's departure, the "little group of Apostles" formed a "Jewish sect that remained faithful to the form of worship practised in the Temple". However, when the observances of converts from paganism were added to them, a 'special system' was offered to them, as it were: the Council of Jerusalem in 49 A.D. exempted them from circumcision and Jewish observances; "many Judeo-Christians rejected this concession". This group was quite separate from Paul's. What is more, Paul and the Judeo-Christians were in conflict over the question of pagans who had turned to Christianity, (the incident of Antioch, 49 A.D.). "For Paul, the circumcision, Sabbath, and form of worship practised in the Temple were henceforth old fashioned, even for the Jews. Christianity was to free itself from its political-cum-religious adherence to Judaism and open itself to the Gentiles."
For those Judeo-Christians who remained 'loyal Jews,' Paul was a traitor. Judeo-Christian documents call him an 'enemy', accuse him of 'tactical double-dealing', . . . '"Until 70 A.D., Judeo-Christianity represents the majority of the Church" and "Paul remains an isolated case". The head of the community at that time was James, a relation of Jesus. With him were Peter (at the beginning) and John. "James may be considered to represent the Judeo-Christian camp, which deliberately clung to Judaism as opposed to Pauline Christianity." Jesus's family has a very important place in the Judeo-Christian Church of Jerusalem. "James's successor was Simeon, son of Cleopas, a cousin of the Lord".
Cardinal Danielou here quotes Judeo-Christian writings which express the views on Jesus of this community which initially formed around the apostles: the Gospel of the Hebrews (coming from a Judeo-Christian community in Egypt), the writings of Clement: Homilies and Recognitions, 'Hypotyposeis', the Second Apocalypse of James, the Gospel of Thomas.[22] "It is to the Judeo-Christians that one must ascribe the oldest writings of Christian literature." Cardinal Daniélou mentions them in detail.
"It was not just in Jerusalem and Palestine that Judeo-Christianity predominated during the first hundred years of the Church. The Judeo-Christian mission seems everywhere to have developed before the Pauline mission. This is certainly the explanation of the fact that the letters of Paul allude to a conflict." They were the same adversaries he was to meet everywhere: in Galatia, Corinth, Colossae, Rome and Antioch.
The Syro-Palestinian coast from Gaza to Antioch was Judeo-Christian '"as witnessed by the Acts of the Apostles and Clementine writings". In Asia Minor, the existence of Judeo-Christians is indicated in Paul's letters to the Galatians and Colossians. Papias's writings give us information about Judeo-Christianity in Phrygia. In Greece, Paul's first letter to the Corinthians mentions Judeo-Christians, especially at Apollos. According to Clement's letter and the Shepherd of Hermas, Rome was an 'important centre'. For Suetonius and Tacitus, the Christians represented a Jewish sect. Cardinal Daniélou thinks that the first evangelization in Africa was Judeo-Christian. The Gospel of the Hebrews and the writings of Clement of Alexandria link up with this.
It is essential to know these facts to understand the struggle between communities that formed the background against which the Gospels were written. The texts that we have today, after many adaptations from the sources, began to appear around 70 A.D., the time when the two rival communities were engaged in a fierce struggle, with the Judeo-Christians still retaining the upper hand. With the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. the situation was to be reversed. This is how Cardinal Daniélou explains the decline:
"After the Jews had been discredited in the Empire, the Christians tended to detach themselves from them. The Hellenistic peoples of Christian persuasion then gained the upper hand. Paul won a posthumous victory. Christianity separated itself politically and sociologically from Judaism; it became the third people. All the same, until the Jewish revolt in 140 A.D., Judeo-Christianity continued to predominate culturally"
From 70 A.D. to a period sometime before 110 A.D. the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were produced. They do not constitute the first written Christian documents: the letters of Paul date from well before them. According to O. Culmann, Paul probably wrote his letter to the Thessalonians in 50 A.D. He had probably disappeared several years prior to the completion of Mark's Gospel.
Paul is the most controversial figure in Christianity. He was considered to be a traitor to Jesus's thought by the latter's family and by the apostles who had stayed in Jerusalem in the circle around James. Paul created Christianity at the expense of those whom Jesus had gathered around him to spread his teachings. He had not known Jesus during his lifetime and he proved the legitimacy of his mission by declaring that Jesus, raised from the dead, had appeared to him on the road to Damascus. It is quite reasonable to ask what Christianity might have been without Paul and one could no doubt construct all sorts of hypotheses on this subject. As far as the Gospels are concerned however, it is almost certain that if this atmosphere of struggle between communities had not existed, we would not have had the writings we possess today. They appeared at a time of fierce struggle between the two communities. These 'combat writings', as Father Kannengiesser calls them, emerged from the multitude of writings on Jesus. These occurred at the time when Paul's style of Christianity won through definitively, and created its own collection of official texts. These texts constituted the 'Canon' which condemned and excluded as unorthodox any other documents that were not suited to the line adopted by the Church.
The Judeo-Christians have now disappeared as a community with any influence, but one still hears people talking about them under the general term of 'Judaïstic'. This is how Cardinal Daniélou describes their disappearance:
"When they were cut off -from the Great Church, that gradually freed itself from its Jewish attachments, they petered out very quickly in the West. In the East however it is possible to find traces of them in the Third and Fourth Centuries A.D., especially in Palestine, Arabia, Transjordania, Syria and Mesopotamia. Others joined in the orthodoxy of the Great Church, at the same time preserving traces of Semitic culture; some of these still persist in the Churches of Ethiopia and Chaldea".Posted by Bhakta Ray @ 01/26/2006 10:47 AM PST
"It looks like Pradeep has shown positively that Prabhupada has rejected the Aquarian Gospel and for the same reasons that Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have rejected all the scriptures of the Yavanas and Molecchas, like the Bible."
Since you did not specify your version of these 'reasons', would you care to enumerate them?
Lumping all non-Vedic scriptures together is a bit of a leap. For instance, the Aquarian Gospel hardly compares with the New Testament either in the matter of authorative sources or subject matter.Posted by Tara devi @ 01/25/2006 04:08 PM PST
It looks like Pradeep has shown positively that Prabhupada has rejected the Aquarian Gospel and for the same reasons that Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas have rejected all the scriptures of the Yavanas and Molecchas, like the Bible. They are simply mundane and have no value for understanding God or the path of God consciousness. Well done Pradeep.
| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts | | About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |