View source for But that means Jesus Christ is transcendental, not of this material world

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"But that means Jesus Christ is transcendental, not of this material world"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|07Apr12}}
{{last|09Apr12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:That Means...]]
[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Transcendental]]
[[Category:Material World (Prakrti)]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithdevoteesaboutTwelfthCantoKaliyugaandConversationwithGuestJune151974Paris_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="119" link="Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris" link_text="Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris">
<div class="heading">But that means Jesus Christ is transcendental, not of this material world.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris|Room Conversation with devotees about Twelfth Canto Kali-yuga, and Conversation with Guest -- June 15, 1974, Paris]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Now who will translate? You, one by one, line, the translation you speak.</p>
<p>Nitāi: O.K. "I offer my obeisances unto Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the son of Vāsudeva, who is the Supreme, All-pervading Personality of Godhead. I meditate upon Him, the transcendent reality, who is the primeval cause of all causes, from whom all manifested universes arise, in whom they dwell, and by whom they are destroyed. I meditate upon that eternally effulgent Lord who is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations and yet is beyond them. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge into the heart of Brahmā."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And this is Vedic knowledge.</p>
<p>Nitāi: "Who is the first created living being."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You read another verse, aham ādir hi devānāṁ maharṣīṇāṁ ca (Bg 10.2). Aham ādir hi devānām. (loud noise in background) Never mind, never mind. Don't bother. That's all right.</p>
<p>Nitāi: Oh, from the Bhagavad-gītā? Aham...?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Aham ādir hi devānām. In the Bible it is said, "There was word." That is Vedic knowledge.</p>
<p>Nitāi: Aham ādir hi devānāṁ maharṣīṇāṁ ca sarvaśaḥ: "Neither the hosts of demigods nor the sages know My origin for in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages."</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: You said also in the Bible it is said, "There is the word."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That word, sound, is the Vedas. So before creation, Vedas were there. So you cannot find out the history of Vedas. You find out the history where the creation began. Then, before that, Vedas were there. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He (the Bishop) says that he finds many things agreeable in this Vedic tradition, but he says that he thinks it might be a mistake to say that the Bible is exactly the same thing as the Vedas. He says there are still distinctions.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then, then, distinction, then it is to be considered which is perfect, the later edition or the original. (French)</p>
<p>Jyotirmayī: They are saying that according to their understanding, God revealed Himself little by little, and then at certain moment, He revealed Himself in His totality. But in the Vedic literature, there it is said that the whole knowledge was given at the beginning. Everything together. He said that he's very much respecting your research, and that he's asking that we should not say that these two research in Christianism and the Vedas, the scriptures, are the same. They are two different things. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says, for example, the verse you read yesterday, that was similar to what is taught in the Vedas, but if we take the rest of that chapter from the Bible, we find some discrepancies, differences.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that? (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: For example, in that chapter, it also says that the word of God became flesh and that flesh was the son of God, Lord Jesus Christ.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But that means Jesus Christ is transcendental, not of this material world. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: They say... They accept... They think that Lord Jesus, however, was a human being. He was spiritual, but also he was part of this material world.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, material world is part of Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ is not part of material world. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: He says that they had a human body, he had a material body.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That human body appears like that, but he had no this material flesh and blood. A material body, how there can be resurrection?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: If it was material body, how is it possible for him to be resurrected? (French)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Is that all right?</p>
<p>Jyotirmayī: They said it is by the acintya power of God.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: These, these rascals, they thought that "Jesus had a material body. Let us kill him." So Jesus Christ bewildered them more, to remain rascal, that they will continue to think that Jesus had a material body.</p>
<p>Jyotirmayī: Bewildered them?</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Yes, he bewildered them more by saying: "All right, go on thinking like that."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is their punishment. They remain always in darkness that Jesus had a material body. (French)</p>
<p>Jyotirmayī: So he's saying that he respects your explanation, but that the Christians, they have another explanation, and that if we...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But we must come to the reason before giving explanation. You cannot explain...</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: What is the reason for his incarnation?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You cannot explain whimsically. You cannot explain whimsically. If Jesus Christ is son of God, he has... That means he has got spiritual body. You...</p>
<p>French Woman: Yes, we accept that he got the has got spiritual body, but we say that he assumed also a material body.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Now, then, then, another thing is: you accept Jesus Christ the only son of God, is it not? So when you pray in the church, you address God, "Oh Father." Then why "only son"?</p>
<p>French Woman: We say that the son is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then everyone is son.</p>
<p>French Woman: Yes, we say that this is the same God, yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If I address God, "My father," then I am his son. So why there should be "only son"? (French)</p>
<p>French Woman: Yes, we say that we are adopted sons. (laughter) (French)</p>
<p>Jyotirmayī: They say that they are sons, that all living beings are sons, but by adoption.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Adopted son. Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So therefore these sons' body and Jesus's body cannot be equal. So adopted son has got material body, not the real son. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: Their idea is that: Yes, of course, Lord Jesus, being the son of God, his body is spiritual, but because he wanted to take part in the life of the human beings on earth, he actually accepted a material body just to live among men.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why he should accept?</p>
<p>French Woman: But we have a vesper that says that he was died, that he was suffering, and things which show that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But his death... You think that he was died, but he resurrected.</p>
<p>French Woman: But the gospel says that he had died.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That's all right.</p>
<p>French Woman: You cannot... We accept the totality of the word, as you accept your word.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. No, no. "Died" means that is similar death. Janma karma me divyam ([[Vanisource:BG 4.9 (1972)|BG 4.9]]). Just like Christ take birth from the womb of Mary. It appears like that, but actually that is not. (French)</p>
<p>French Woman: No, it is very important that the death of Christ is a real death. For us, it is the center of our faith.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: They say that the central point of their philosophy is that Lord Jesus actually died. (French)</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, according to Vedic conception, even ordinary living being, he does not die. Na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre ([[Vanisource:BG 2.20 (1972)|BG 2.20]]). You understand Sanskrit?</p>
<p>French Woman: No, I don't understand it by hearing it. You have to read it.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Na hanyate, does not die, hanyamāne śarīre, apparently, the body being dead, the soul is never dead. (French)</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: So... Shall I explain that one? What the good Pastor—are they called Pastor?—describes is that in order for there to be a dialogue, we have to respect each others' positions, not that we will try to convert the other. He says just as we respect you have an absolute faith in the Vedic philosophy, so also there must be respect that the Christian interpretation of the life of Lord Jesus and his death...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, I think I have better respect than him to Jesus Christ. I say he does not die. He says he dies. (French) So far respect is concerned, I have more respect than them. They want to see Jesus Christ dead. I don't want to see him dead.</p>
<p>French Woman: No. Death and resurrection after, Jesus.</p>
<p>Yogeśvara: There's a resurrection.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>