Lord Chaitanya said that Bible and Koran are full of faults?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you very much. Hare Krishna Ok So Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has said that the Bible and Quran are full of mistakes How do we understand that? In every broadly you could say there are three paths three kinds of paths you could say Exclusivist, this is the only way Pluralist, there are many ways, let everyone follow their way and Inclusivist Inclusivist is the idea that there is one purpose and that purpose includes many different paths So Exclusivist says this is the only way up the mountain Pluralist says all ways take you up the mountain Well no, some ways may take you into a valley down some ways may just keep you going round and round the mountain So Pluralism is also not right We don’t want to be narrow minded now but at the same time we can’t be so open minded that our brains fall out So Pluralism sounds fine but in reality it is Inclusivism Inclusivism there is one purpose the one purpose is to rise in our consciousness there are many different paths for that one purpose So having categorized paths like this now we can go deeper actually within each tradition there will be statements of all kind in every tradition there will be some Exclusivist statements there will be some Pluralist statements you do what you are doing, let others do what they are doing and there will be some Inclusivist statements So for example when the Bible says that Jesus is the only way and none shall go to the father except through him Now what does that mean? Before Jesus there were many ways and after Jesus came it became only one way If Jesus is the only way then what about all the people who came before Jesus? Was there no way for them? Or there were ways for them and Jesus who is supposed to manifest the love of God He came and reduced the many ways to one way That is not very loving Isn’t it? So now this statement is given for creating focus It is like a patient has gone to a dozen doctors and then finally comes to a good doctor and then the doctor says ok this is your problem and you take this medicine but the patient says no but you know I went to that doctor and he said this and I went to that doctor and she said that and that. This doctor forget everything that everyone else has told you just take this medicine and you get cured Now when the doctor is saying just forget what everyone else has told you that is not a condemnation or rejection of other doctors That is simply to create focus.
You just follow this statement So within every tradition there will be statements which sound exclusivist which are primarily meant to create focus So what to speak of talking about other traditions like Christianity and Islam You can even say that there is Krishna’s Kaviraj Goswami saying in the Chaitanya Jaya Tamod itself that is somebody worships except Krishna as divine but doesn’t accept lord Chaitanya as divine they are condemned Now there are so many, there will be Sri Vaishnavas Madhava Vaishnavas who may not accept lord Chaitanya as divine they may accept him as a great saint Are they condemned? Obviously not So statements have a context Those particular statements come with respect to the bible and the Quran primarily with respect to Quran They come in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s discussion with Chand Kazi Now Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in what context is he saying it? He is saying it primarily in the context that they are saying that in our tradition eating cow flesh is allowed So we see that what happens after that It’s not that he rejects his tradition and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu even insists that if if you want to take that statement as a literal truth that if those particular texts are filled with there are many many faults then why did Chaitanya Mahaprabhu ask Chand Kazi to continue worshiping and being a follower of that tradition Why didn’t he convert him? So we may say it is for social convention sake but for social convention will you do something completely wrong? So it is I think there is specific context The main thrust of the discussion was about the discussion was triggered by the breaking of Upadanga by Chand Kazi’s followers Chand Kazi himself But then the thrust of the discussion was that you know in our tradition it is allowed to eat meat cow flesh. He said no So that is the point which Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is addressing Now if you want to generalize that and say that that is our stand against for all traditions Well that would be taking one statement from a context and generalizing it Okay Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that but Bhaktivinoda Thakur is saying I worship God in different manifestations. So is Bhaktivinoda Thakur deviating from Chaitanya Mahaprabhu then? No we have to see inclusivist.
So exclusivist statements whenever they are there we should see that they are meant for creating focus and generally it will depend largely on who are the present teachers of that tradition. If the present teachers of a particular tradition emphasize the exclusivist statements then the tradition will in its present manifestation become exclusivist If If the present teachers are more inclusivist then the tradition will be inclusivist Okay. Thank you