Christ & Krishna: Any truth in this? (Jesus, Earth, gospel)

[michaelm]

I think it is always dangerous to try and measure an Avatar. You say Jesus was an Avatar of God, but Krishna is God......to me that is so dangerous. We so easily get caught up in personalities and attached to the form.
What matters is not the form, but the message brought to us. Why else do we have Avatars and Yogis....to end up arguing over which Avatar was greater than another? or which was an Avatar, and which was God-Realised...which is, apparantly, slightly different.
All i know is Krishna, the Buddha, Christ, Ramakrishna (and many others unknown to me) came to teach and inspire. If some were inspired by one and some by another, that was the purpose of their different timing and place. We favour one before the other because it suits out tendencies, not becasue one is superior to the other.

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Originally Posted by michaelm

I think it is always dangerous to try and measure an Avatar. You say Jesus was an Avatar of God, but Krishna is God......to me that is so dangerous. We so easily get caught up in personalities and attached to the form.
What matters is not the form, but the message brought to us. Why else do we have Avatars and Yogis....to end up arguing over which Avatar was greater than another? or which was an Avatar, and which was God-Realised...which is, apparantly, slightly different.
All i know is Krishna, the Buddha, Christ, Ramakrishna (and many others unknown to me) came to teach and inspire. If some were inspired by one and some by another, that was the purpose of their different timing and place. We favour one before the other because it suits out tendencies, not becasue one is superior to the other.

Hahahahahahhaha.......(estatic laughter), no desrepect my friend but do you not realize that this is'nt my opinion but from bonafide scripture.......also the path that you elude to is of the impersonalist platform, even the greatest impersonalist outside of buddha, srilapada sankara knew of krsnas true nature, it is his maya that deludes mankinds opinion of him so they wish to deride him thinking of him to be purely mortal.......if you just look to understand with your minds eye the words of krsna's incarnation lord sri caitanya mahaprabhu you will see the nature of the divine......don't take my word for it research, ye who seeks shall find, many blessing to you.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Hema

I believe that they are both avatars of the same one God. However, Christ is said to have been born a little over 2000 years ago. I came across this excerpt from http://www.aryabhatt.com/fast_fair_f...shnaastami.htm
"Devaki tingling with ecstasy gave birth to a child when the moon entered the house of 'Vrishabha' at the constellation of the star Rohini on Wednesday the 8th day of the second fortnight of the month of Sravana, which corresponds to the month of "Bhadrapada Krishnapaksha" according to the "Barhaspatyamana", in the year of 'Visvavasu', 5,I72 years ago (from I945), which means 3227 B.C."

I have heard of the Aquarian Gospel which states that Christ spent his missing days in India studying under Lomas Rishi and Agashta Muni (Spelling may be wrong). He studied Vedic teaching. My dad saw the Aquarian Gospel in a shop owned by a Rastafarian man in Barbados but he didn't have enough money with him to buy it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you weren't right. As a few have already pointed out here, thew chances are that all our So called different Gods (from different religions) are one and the same - maybe seen with different eyes, and by a different Culture.

(and BTW Hema, I too have heard that Christ spent time in India- although I have never tried to find out just how likely it is that he did so).

[Hema]

Originally Posted by Moses the God Archetype*

Beloved very good question, when the lord comes as a avartara it varys in degrees or potencies, therefor having aspects of the divine personality but not in whole....as in the case with sri-krsna he was truly God incarnate with all 64 qualities intact with full bliss and understanding.......this is not say that any other avatar is better than the other, but going off thee information presented in the srimad bhagavatam and the bhagavad geta as being bonafide thats the ground i stand on, anyway it all leads to the same source....by the way do you consider yourself a devotee of siva?

Very good response. Thank you. This reminds me of how the Lord manifested in different "potencies" in Shri Ram and his brothers! He manifested to a greater extent in Shri Ram and to a lesser extent in his brothers. Yes I will say that I'm a devotee of Shiva because I love Hanuman as a big brother. I had a couple dreams of Shiva and recently had one with a Hanuman murti who was drinking holy water!

[Hema]

Originally Posted by michel

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you weren't right. As a few have already pointed out here, thew chances are that all our So called different Gods (from different religions) are one and the same - maybe seen with different eyes, and by a different Culture.

(and BTW Hema, I too have heard that Christ spent time in India- although I have never tried to find out just how likely it is that he did so).

Hugs for you too Dad! Yes I believe that there is only one God with many manifestations and many names.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by michaelm

I think it is always dangerous to try and measure an Avatar. You say Jesus was an Avatar of God, but Krishna is God......to me that is so dangerous. We so easily get caught up in personalities and attached to the form.
What matters is not the form, but the message brought to us.

But in both traditional Christianity and the Hare Krishnas the form is the message.

Jesus is believed to be the Logos incarnate, not just a messenger of the Logos. And as Moses just said of Krishna, he believes Kirshna to be a perfect manifestation of God, apprarently qualitatively different than the other avatars of Vishnu.

In this respect, Christ and Krishna truly are very similar.

[michaelm]

Originally Posted by lilithu

But in both traditional Christianity and the Hare Krishnas the form is the message.

Jesus is believed to be the Logos incarnate, not just a messenger of the Logos. And as Moses just said of Krishna, he believes Kirshna to be a perfect manifestation of God, apprarently qualitatively different than the other avatars of Vishnu.

In this respect, Christ and Krishna truly are very similar.

Devotion is a very useful spiritual practice. If someone feels drawn to worship Christ then that is good, if someone else feels the same toward Krishna, then that is also equally good.
However, the importance of Christ & Krishna is in their teaching, not just in what they said, but what they did as well.
Whichever 'avatar' you follow, it is important to follow what they teach. If you truly love someone, admire them and feel devoted to them, then you would want to do what they wish.
If one person loves Christ, another loves Krishna, another Buddha, another Vishnu or Shiva etc then it is the love and devotion that is created that is important. There is nothing to be gained by saying this avatar is more perfect than that avatar. All that does is create conflict between groups.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by michaelm

Devotion is a very useful spiritual practice. If someone feels drawn to worship Christ then that is good, if someone else feels the same toward Krishna, then that is also equally good.
However, the importance of Christ & Krishna is in their teaching, not just in what they said, but what they did as well.
Whichever 'avatar' you follow, it is important to follow what they teach. If you truly love someone, admire them and feel devoted to them, then you would want to do what they wish.
If one person loves Christ, another loves Krishna, another Buddha, another Vishnu or Shiva etc then it is the love and devotion that is created that is important. There is nothing to be gained by saying this avatar is more perfect than that avatar. All that does is create conflict between groups.

Look, I pretty much agree with you, but you're just repeating the same thing that you said before and my point is that it's not going to make a bit of difference to someone who believes otherwise. For some people, it is the form not the message.