11 deleted 1957 characters in body
source | link

Taken from Barbara A. Holdrege's "Bhakti and Embodiment."

I find this violent and forced interpretation of the text insulting. Why would a sect deliberate force and twist words in order to serve their own purpose? Was Chaitanya black? The word Krishna means "dark" or "black." How could Chaitanya have been Krishna if he was not even black? I'm digressing at this point, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's behavior and lifestyle did not even accord with the behavior of what is described in the Bhagavad Gita as the behavior of an Avatar:

  1. Killing the miscreants.
  2. Protecting the pious.
  3. Reestablishing religion.

Viewed from this perspective, the historical Muhammad has a far better claim to being an Avatar than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Muhammad fought wars with atheists and polytheists (killed the miscreants); gave women their rights and liberated slaves, while protecting people estranged from mainstream society (protected the pious); and smashed the idols in the Ka'aba while destroying the existing pagan Meccan religion and reestablishing non-superstitious monotheism as the religion of Arabia (reestablishing religion). Yet Muhammad's followers dare not deify him.

Meanwhile Chaitanya Mahaprabhu lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than Chaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

Digressions aside.Anyway, I havestill haven't found noany comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

"Among numerous Avatars of various degrees of divinity, Krishna alone is ranked as the most complete one, the Purna Avatar."

Taken from here: (http://krishnamurti.abundanthope.org/index_htm_files/The-Bhagavata-Purana.pdf)

This is embarrassing. Perhaps it makes sense though, given that we are in Kali Yuga, it would not be surprising for the Kshatriya-related activities of God to disappear in this dark age.

Taken from Barbara A. Holdrege's "Bhakti and Embodiment."

I find this violent and forced interpretation of the text insulting. Why would a sect deliberate force and twist words in order to serve their own purpose? Was Chaitanya black? The word Krishna means "dark" or "black." How could Chaitanya have been Krishna if he was not even black? I'm digressing at this point, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's behavior and lifestyle did not even accord with the behavior of what is described in the Bhagavad Gita as the behavior of an Avatar:

  1. Killing the miscreants.
  2. Protecting the pious.
  3. Reestablishing religion.

Viewed from this perspective, the historical Muhammad has a far better claim to being an Avatar than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Muhammad fought wars with atheists and polytheists (killed the miscreants); gave women their rights and liberated slaves, while protecting people estranged from mainstream society (protected the pious); and smashed the idols in the Ka'aba while destroying the existing pagan Meccan religion and reestablishing non-superstitious monotheism as the religion of Arabia (reestablishing religion). Yet Muhammad's followers dare not deify him.

Meanwhile Chaitanya Mahaprabhu lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than Chaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

Digressions aside. I have found no comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

"Among numerous Avatars of various degrees of divinity, Krishna alone is ranked as the most complete one, the Purna Avatar."

Taken from here: (http://krishnamurti.abundanthope.org/index_htm_files/The-Bhagavata-Purana.pdf)

This is embarrassing. Perhaps it makes sense though, given that we are in Kali Yuga, it would not be surprising for the Kshatriya-related activities of God to disappear in this dark age.

Anyway, I still haven't found any comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

Taken from here: (http://krishnamurti.abundanthope.org/index_htm_files/The-Bhagavata-Purana.pdf)

10 Grammatical corrections, changed "this Chaitanya fellow" to "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu", since the OP had used the same in other parts of the question.
source | link

Theologically, I find this bothersome, because the ISKCON presentpresents Krishna as being the Supreme Godhead from whom all the Vedic deities flow (including Vishnu).

The ISKCONISKCON's translation is biased, however, and will therefore consistently translate any texts they find in order to retroactively fit these biases, they will claim that the fourth Yuga-Avatar is in fact "light" or "bright" complexioned (i.e. "golden" complexioned), yet a strict translation of the Purana does not say this. The ISKCON translateISKCON's translation: "in the fourth Yuga (Kali Yuga), although the Lord Himself is not black... (akrsnam)."

Meanwhile this Chaitanya fellowMahaprabhu lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than CChaitanyaaitanyaChaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

Digressions aside. I have found no comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by the ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

Theologically, I find this bothersome, because the ISKCON present Krishna as being the Supreme Godhead from whom all the Vedic deities flow (including Vishnu).

The ISKCON is biased, however, and will therefore consistently translate any texts they find in order to retroactively fit these biases, they will claim that the fourth Yuga-Avatar is in fact "light" or "bright" complexioned (i.e. "golden" complexioned), yet a strict translation of the Purana does not say this. The ISKCON translate: "in the fourth Yuga (Kali Yuga), although the Lord Himself is not black... (akrsnam)."

Meanwhile this Chaitanya fellow lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than CChaitanyaaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

Digressions aside. I have found no comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by the ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

Theologically, I find this bothersome, because ISKCON presents Krishna as being the Supreme Godhead from whom all the Vedic deities flow (including Vishnu).

ISKCON's translation is biased, however, and will therefore consistently translate any texts they find in order to retroactively fit these biases, they will claim that the fourth Yuga-Avatar is in fact "light" or "bright" complexioned (i.e. "golden" complexioned), yet a strict translation of the Purana does not say this. ISKCON's translation: "in the fourth Yuga (Kali Yuga), although the Lord Himself is not black... (akrsnam)."

Meanwhile Chaitanya Mahaprabhu lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than Chaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

Digressions aside. I have found no comprehensive translations of the Purana not tainted by ISKCON's (seemingly Gaudiya-related) biases.

9 added 11 characters in body
source | link

I find this violent and forced interpretation of the text insulting. Why would a sect deliberate force and twist words in order to serve their own purpose? Was CaitanyaChaitanya black? The word Krishna means "dark" or "black." How could CaitanyaChaitanya have been Krishna if he was not even black? I'm digressing at this point, but CaitanyaChaitanya Mahaprabhu's behavior and lifestyle did not even accord with the behavior of what is described in the Bhagavad Gita as the behavior of an Avatar:

Viewed from this perspective, the historical Muhammad has a far better claim to being an Avatar than CaitanyaChaitanya Mahaprabhu. Muhammad fought wars with atheists and polytheists (killed the miscreants); gave women their rights and liberated slaves, while protecting people estranged from mainstream society (protected the pious); and smashed the idols in the Ka'aba while destroying the existing pagan Meccan religion and reestablishing non-superstitious monotheism as the religion of Arabia (reestablishing religion). Yet Muhammad's followers dare not deify him.

Meanwhile this CaitanyaChaitanya fellow lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than CaitanyaCChaitanyaaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

I find this violent and forced interpretation of the text insulting. Why would a sect deliberate force and twist words in order to serve their own purpose? Was Caitanya black? The word Krishna means "dark" or "black." How could Caitanya have been Krishna if he was not even black? I'm digressing at this point, but Caitanya Mahaprabhu's behavior and lifestyle did not even accord with the behavior of what is described in the Bhagavad Gita as the behavior of an Avatar:

Viewed from this perspective, the historical Muhammad has a far better claim to being an Avatar than Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Muhammad fought wars with atheists and polytheists (killed the miscreants); gave women their rights and liberated slaves, while protecting people estranged from mainstream society (protected the pious); and smashed the idols in the Ka'aba while destroying the existing pagan Meccan religion and reestablishing non-superstitious monotheism as the religion of Arabia (reestablishing religion). Yet Muhammad's followers dare not deify him.

Meanwhile this Caitanya fellow lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than Caitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

I find this violent and forced interpretation of the text insulting. Why would a sect deliberate force and twist words in order to serve their own purpose? Was Chaitanya black? The word Krishna means "dark" or "black." How could Chaitanya have been Krishna if he was not even black? I'm digressing at this point, but Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's behavior and lifestyle did not even accord with the behavior of what is described in the Bhagavad Gita as the behavior of an Avatar:

Viewed from this perspective, the historical Muhammad has a far better claim to being an Avatar than Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Muhammad fought wars with atheists and polytheists (killed the miscreants); gave women their rights and liberated slaves, while protecting people estranged from mainstream society (protected the pious); and smashed the idols in the Ka'aba while destroying the existing pagan Meccan religion and reestablishing non-superstitious monotheism as the religion of Arabia (reestablishing religion). Yet Muhammad's followers dare not deify him.

Meanwhile this Chaitanya fellow lacked even the dark complexion of Krishna, but acted like a celibate hippy who chanted Krishna's names and swooned at various locations associated with Krishna's life, he neither engaged in various amorous love affairs (something Muhammad even seemed to do; Muhammad had 13 wives), nor did he kill atheists. As an even-more ironic aside, Muhammad had a darker complexion than CChaitanyaaitanya, given that Muhammad was Arabian.

8 added 4 characters in body
source | link
7 deleted 4 characters in body
source | link
6 added 4 characters in body
source | link
5 added 5 characters in body; edited tags
source | link
4 added 9 characters in body
source | link
3 added 2 characters in body; added 10 characters in body
source | link
2 added 12 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link