The Origins of the Satan Myth and impact to global politics

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

We need to Test our understandings...

[suchandra]

Haribol Bhakta Don Muntean, seems this topic is of quite some importance for you and you put quite some time to get the details. I did some similiar research about the Ancient Mysteries of Babylonia trying to find out if there's a connection to vedic culture? The descendents of Lucifer intermingled with those who where solely created according God's image and these two are the ones who are fighting till today against each other, two classes of "fallen ones". The fallen angels, and fallen mankind?

 

"In heaven, there was a beautiful Angel named Lucifer. He was a musician, and also a covering cherub of God's original throne.

 

He was so beautiful, and held such high rankings among the angels, that he started becoming slightly prideful. He felt that he could do a better job than God Himself could, who according his view made too many foolish mistakes. He started spreading his word to other angels and finally one third of the angels decided to follow Lucifer and created their own agenda, to try to overthrow God. They lost and God cast them out of heaven. At that time, Lucifer's name got changed to Satan. The fallen angels were no longer called angels, but devils/demons.

 

"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee." Ezekiel 28:14-17

 

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Isaiah 14:12-14

 

In Genesis chapter three, we see that Satan lied to Eve, and told her to go against what God had told her. Eve fell for Satan's slick deception, just as Satan's trickery was able to cause one third of God's angels to fall. The devil had now caused mankind to fall, by introducing them to sin. Hence now we have two classes of "fallen ones". The fallen angels, and fallen mankind.

 

God dished out punishments to everyone involved in the Genesis 3 incident. Part of Adam's and Eve's punishment was to be banned from Eden. God's punishment for Satan was one that was not to be fulfilled yet, but in the future. It was a prophecy: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15

 

A person, born from a virgin would crush Satan, but not until after Satan bruised this Saviour's heel ( adopted by Homer, Achilles is killed by Paris with the help of Apollo?).

 

This prophecy partially happened in Jesus’ first coming here on earth, and will be fully finished at His second coming. The bruising of Jesus' heel was the crucifixion. Satan thought that he could thwart God's plan, if he could create his own false Saviour(s)/gods, and his own false fulfillment of this prophecy. So he did...

 

"In the days of Lu-Mach did Marduk and the Igigi with Earthlings intermarry."

 

( God said, let us make men in our image, after our likeness; And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. )

 

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:1-4

 

Here we now have half-breeds being created. Half Annunki/demon, and half human. The Bible refers to the names of the offspring, and people who carry this tainted bloodline as: Anakims, giants, mighty ones, Emims, Rephaim, Horims, Zamzummims, and the Avims. Not all mighty ones were giants. Sometimes the trait carried genetically would be powers, special intelligence, extra-ordinary talents, etc.

 

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee [Noah] will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee." Genesis 6:17-18

 

The Bible explains that the flood happend, because the human bloodline was getting seriously tainted with the demon blood. In fact, only Noah and his sons were pure in their generations, meaning that they didn't have the nefilim blood:

 

"These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6:9

The bible says that Noah and his generations were pure, but what about Noah's son's wives? The 'mighty one' gene came through Ham's (one of Noah's sons) wife.

 

"And the sons of Ham, Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth." Genesis 10:6-8

 

Nimrod is none other than Marduk. Satan finally saw his opportunity to attempt to falsely fulfill the earlier mentioned prophecy in Genesis 3:15. He has all his tools in place.

 

Queen Semiramis

 

Nimrod married a woman named Semiramis. Semiramis became Satan's counterfeit virgin, and Nimrod the counterfeit god, with a son to be born, who will both be claimed to born via immaculate conception, but a reincarnation of Nimrod -the false Saviour.

 

The Temple

 

Semiramis was the Queen of Babylon, and Nimrod was the founder of it, as well as many other major cities. Because of Nimrod's "mighty one" status, he and Semiramis were quickly deified, and considered gods. They came up with celebacy, confessionals, and catholic-type priesthoods. In the bible, Nimrod is known as the god Moloch. In ancient tablets, he's often called Marduk.

 

Babylonian gate

 

Then, Nimrod was killed and shortly after Nimrod's death, Semiramis claimed to be pregnant and said that she was still a virgin. The baby, she said, was the reincarnation of Nimrod. The baby was named Tamuz, and became the false sun god called Baal.

 

 

The Mediatrix

 

Meanwhile, Semiramis got many goddess names, such as Baalti (meaning The Madonna), The Great Goddess Mother, Queen of Heaven, The Mediatrix, The Mother of Mankind, Astarte, etc.

 

As time passed, monuments were carved all over the world, of this mother and child. They were known under different names, depending on the part of the world the monument was created. Such as Devaki and Crishna, Isis and Horus, Indrani and Child, etc.

 

"So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city." Genesis 11:8

 

At the tower of Babel incident of Genesis 11, God eventually scattered everyone all over the world, and gave them different languages. This is how monuments of the false Nimrod reincarnate and fake virgin started appearing all over the world, with different names.

 

CHINA- Shing Moo

INDIA - Devaki and Crishna

EPHESUS - Diana

EGYPT - Isis and Horus

GREECE - Aphrodite (The Mediatrix)

ROME - Venus and Jupiter

ISRAEL - Ashtoreth and Baal

 

When the Isralites were starting to take possession of the promised land, they were commanded by God to wipe out the inhabitants of the land. This was for two reasons:

 

1) There were still a limited number of half breeds - giants in the land, and the promised land was primarily where they dwelt. When one has demon blood coursing through their veins, they are more inherently evil than a regular human being.

 

2) Those who weren't the half breeds also had to be eliminated because they worshipped Marduk and his comrades. How did they worship him? By sacrificing their children! Also, every woman in that community was forced to be a temple prostitute at least once in lifetime. No one was left untainted.

 

Marduk and his buddies were the founders of the ancient Babylon religion. Many of the major rites and rituals of Roman Catholism do not come from the bible, but from this ancient Babylonian religion. Marduk and his wife came up with confessionals, celibacy, and the priesthood as the Roman Catholics portrays it.

 

Acts chapter 19 tells of Wiccans in Ephesus who worshipped Diana, the goddess. The Wiccan goddess goes under many names, and one of them is Diana. Wiccans worship Semiramis too. Fortunately for the Wiccans that were in Ephesus, they turned to the one true God, and burned their books of curious arts.

 

Since no one's perfect, God had to make a way to enter heaven and appear perfect before Him, meaning, we'd need our sins washed away. This has been done via Jesus Christ's shed blood, and death on the cross.

Jesus said: "I am the way the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me". John 14:6

 

Holy Priestess

 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

 

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

 

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made."

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

This whole idea is a moot point - there was/is no lucifer no satan no marduk - nothing like that - it is all a persian myth - without doubt - it reads like a good story - but 'that' is all that it is - a story.

 

There was no real background incident which started this story.

 

It is myth - later interpolated into the biblical tradition - as an allegory.

 

Thank you for your posting...

[suchandra]

Mainly people consider the texts of their Holy books as more important than what reveals an arguing philosophical intellect. Fact is most wars in history were/are based on religious disputes, eliminating "Satan", that's what counts - the number of people killed violently. Although our minds say this and that, God is one, we are all his children, fighting/killing is going on in the name of killing Satan/Devil/Shaitan/Demon with full speed. It is all myth - why should myth follow humanity like a shadow? Here just one example, in some ways the Jewish Talmud is considered even more important to the present Jewish faith than the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish tradition holds that Moses received two Torahs on Mount Sinai. One was a written Torah (contained in the Five Books of Moses known as the Pentateuch). The second was an oral Torah, which according to Jewish tradition was passed from Moses to religious leaders (such as rabbis) from century to century. At the end of the second century of the Common Era (AD) this oral tradition was codified and written down. It was called the Mishnah (Hebrew for "instruction"). A discussion of the Mishnah took place in the academies of Babylonia between the years 200 and 600 CE. The edited and redacted transcript of those discussions and dissertations on the Mishnah is called the Gemara (Aramaic for "completion"). Together, Mishnah and Gemara comprise the Talmud (the written record of what Jews believe is Moses' oral Torah, its meaning, and application). The Talmud says, non-Jewish souls come from the three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. The murder of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by Jews is said by the Talmud to be a holy sacrifice to God (Zohar, III, 2276 and I, 38b and 39a) and the killing of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by beheading is especially recommended (Pesachim, 49b). Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help - it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way." Isnt this very similiar like getting rid/killing of Satan? And so it goes, Satan is a myth - but the killing goes on...But can a non-Jew convert to Judaism? No, the only thing that counts is if your mother is Jewish, which she would only be if her mother was Jewish and so on. it's quite hard to know usually - some heavy work in the register of births is called for, but it's not unheard of for people to be able to get re-validated by the beth din three or four generations later. If you turned out to be not religiously Jewish, then you're just a regular normal gentile but if your maternal line did come Jewish you'd be called a tinok she'nishba, a child brought up by non-Jews, but we'd still want you back, so to speak.

 

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Hari Bol!

 

Well you've posted an interesting post - too bad it's slanted toward [an un-devotee like] anti-semitic thinking.

 

As Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"...A Little knowledge is dangerous. Then finished..." [interview on December 31, 1976]

 

Quote:

 

in some ways the Jewish Talmud is considered even more important to the present Jewish faith than the Hebrew Scriptures

 

Reply:

 

That is a generalization.

 

However there is a kernal of reality to that - in the same way that we view Vedanta - as opposed to the original four vedas.

 

We see that the Vedanta is a latter commentary and is essential for anyone wanting an understanding of the original four vedas.

 

As you know there also is Srimad Bhagavatam - that is called a natural commentary on the Vedanta.

 

So primary scriptures with latter commentary isn't something unique to the Hebrews.

 

What I see is that you are setting a subtle idea that the teachings of the Torah are very much neglected in favor of [so-called] lesser books like the Tulmud.

 

Again that is a generalization - and unfair to the truth.

 

Quote:

 

The Talmud says, non-Jewish souls come from the three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. The murder of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by Jews is said by the Talmud to be a holy sacrifice to God (Zohar, III, 2276 and I, 38b and 39a) and the killing of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by beheading is especially recommended (Pesachim, 49b). Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help - it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way."

 

Reply:

 

Well that is a case in point of my problem with your posting.

 

That is an anti-semitic interpretation of something that may not even read that way.

 

But let's assmue [for sake of debate] that it 'does' read that way. What does that really mean?

 

You know that all religious groups have some negative ideas and prejudices recorded in their holy books [and latter writings] - in one place - or another.

 

Of course - we have to see that these writings are very ancient and - that in the bygone eras - all of humanity was acting very much exclusive [chosen by providence] and issues of land and territory control - flame-up all thorough the last 5000 years of kuli yuga time.

 

I do not think that this ancient Talmud is saying these things - and if they did - you know as well as I - we are to - 'understand a thing based on the time and circumstances in which it exists' - not that everything is so 'simple' and 'slanted'.

 

If we need an alternate historic example - let's look at how the white christians looked at the non-christians all around the world - look how everyone not white and saved - was a savage - everything about them their culture and spiritual understandings - were viewed as savage and satanic - and to be thus changed or - wiped out.

 

Just see the desolation of entire peoples - based on 'this form' of christianity.

 

All thoughout history - it seems that the hebrews are treated very poorly - they have been put on - for a long time - who cannot see a very real struggle for existence - an understanding person sees that this might account for seemingly 'negetive ideas' that might appear in the commentary known as Tulmud.

 

Just see as an another example - how hindus and muslims - due to this type of kuli yuga karma - also have hate for each other - and their respective 'latter writings/teachings' may reflect some of that hate.

 

You see the important part to understand is that it is KULI YUGA - the age of quarrel - and in this age - all the faiths and races are tainted with passion and ignorance and the spirit of quarrel.

 

Why are you holding up the hebrews as something of an oddity in this regard - like they are the only ones?

 

Certainly - to any sincere Hebrew - Torah 'is' more important than the Tulmud - but no doubt - one has to understand EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE in CONTEXT.

 

I am not intending to be rude - but if we are ever going to see a world free of all the hell and quarrel [survive kuli yuga] - we have to understand that; not everyone will understand [nor will many even want to] but - if enough of us do - in all the faiths - then we can avoid fanning the flames of passion and ignorance in our dealings.

 

For a devotee - there are no illogical points - when we understand proper context.

 

What we read and hear in any holy books has to be understood in context - as to whether it's a literal point - an allegorical point - a mystical point - a homeletical point - and of course - understanding of time and circumstances - must impact ones interpretations.

 

Would you want people to learn of your faith from an antagonist - or a sincere devotee?

 

To that end - be fair to others - here is a nice link to an online Tulmud - I know I shall study it - [in proper context] - and I encourage others to do the same.

 

It's not healthy to form our ideas based on the twisted interpretations of hate mongers.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

 

This is a quote from that site:

 

"...A search for Talmud at Google will turn up hundreds of thousands of hits, a depressing number of which are to anti-Semitic sites...."

 

Please visit that site...

 

YS,

[suchandra]

 

Name of the topic, 'The Origins of the Satan Myth and impact to global politics'.

Since you posted quite some quotes from non-Vaishnava source it became evident that you must really be a scholarly person who knows what he's doing when starting a thread about the origins of Satanism, 'The Origins of the Satan Myth and impact to global politics'.

Now when inquiring and posting original quotes from Talmud about who exactly originates from the three SATANIC spheres you seem have entered into a state of helplessness and instead answering with logic&argument calling me names. Why neglect the audarya-fellowship forum rules of refuting quotes from holy books of other religions not by badmouthing but by logic&argument? Instead calling inquiring people names when you feel defeated - isnt that a sign of weakness?

 

nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam

eko yo bahunam vidadhati kaman

 

"Description of God. He’s nitya. Nitya means eternal. And we living entities, we are also eternal. Na hanyate hanyamane sarire. We, at the present moment, in the material condition, we are changing body. That change of body is called death. Actually, the living entity within the body, he has no death. Na jayate na mriyate va kadacit. This description we have got in the Vedic literature. So God is also nitya, eternal. We are also eternal. God is also cognizant, and we are also cognizant. We have got knowledge, and God has got knowledge. The difference is that I have got knowledge limited within this limit of this body. I have no knowledge what is going on in your body; neither you know what is going on in my body. Therefore, we are individuals. But God is, although individual, He’s spread everywhere. That is God.

 

Andantara-stha-paramanu-cayantara-stham. God is within this universe, within yourself, within myself, within the atom. Andantara-stha-paramanu... Paramanu means atom. He’s within the atom also. But I, you, we are limited within this body. We are limited. I cannot say that I understand what is going in your body, pains and pleasure. That I cannot say. But I can understand pains and pleasure of my body. So the quality is the same. God has knowledge. You, you, me, we have got knowledge. But our knowledge is limited. God’s knowledge is unlimited. But knowledge is there, cognizant. Therefore the Vedas says nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam. He is the supreme eternal amongst all other eternals. He’s the supreme cognizant amongst all other cognizants. This is the difference.

 

So Bhagavan means the supreme opulent. Bhaga means opulence. Just like riches, reputation, strength, beauty, knowledge, renunciation. These are called opulences. So every one of us has got little opulences. I have got also little money. You have got also little money. But I cannot claim, neither you can claim that you are the proprietor of all the riches of the world or the universe. That you cannot claim. Nobody can claim. But God can claim. That is the difference. God can claim. As He claims... We understand from the Bhagavad-gita:

 

bhoktaram yajna-tapasam

sarva-loka-mahesvaram

suhrdam sarva-bhutanam

jnatva mam santim rcchati

 

God says that “I am the enjoyer of everything.” We are acting in this material world to enjoy something. We are working day and night to get some fruit of our labor and enjoy it. Everyone, either he’s doing business or he’s a professional man or he’s a worker or anything he is, he’s working very hard, day and night, to enjoy something. So... But we cannot claim that we can enjoy everything in this world. Although we have got the desire, but limited power to enjoy. The unlimited enjoyer is Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Just like we want to enjoy life, family life. We marry one wife. Or, in some countries, more than one wife – two, three, four. But when Krishna married, He married 16,108. So... And sixteen thousand wives were given sixteen thousand palaces. And each wife got ten children. And Krishna also expanded Himself into 16,108. That is God. For us, it is very difficult to maintain even one wife at the present moment. This is the difference. Just try to understand what is the meaning of this word bhagavän. Bhaga means opulence. This is one of the opulences, richness. When Krishna was present on this planet, He was so rich that He could maintain sixteen thousand queens in sixteen thousand very costly palaces, made of marble, the furnitures made of ivory, and the beds were made of silk, and each and every room was decorated, bedecked with jewels, glittering jewels, so that at night there was no need of electricity or lamp. These descriptions are there in the Srimad-Bhagavatam of Krishna’s palace, Krishna’s sixteen thousand wives, Krishna’s expansion into sixteen thousand forms. This is Bhagavan. Bhagavan means unlimitedly potential. That is Bhagavan.

 

So here in this chapter, we are trying to understand what is Bhagavan. This Krishna consciousness movement means to try to understand what is Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is our endeavor. It is very difficult to understand Bhagavan, but there is process, you can understand God, or Bhagavan. That process is being described by the Supreme Lord Himself, Bhagavan. Bhagavan uvaca. What is that process?

 

mayy asakta-manah partha

yogam yunjan mad-asrayah

asamsayam samagram mam

yatha jnasyasi tac chrnu

 

“My dear Arjuna, now I shall explain to you. You hear with attention.” Tac chrnu. What is that? Mayy asakta-manah partha. “You have to increase your attachment for Me.” Mayy asakta. Mayi asakta. Mayi means “unto Me,” and äsakti means “attachment.” Mayy asakta-manah. Mind has to be trained up in such a way that you increase your attachment for God, or Krishna.

 

When we speak of Krishna, you understand “God.” Krishna is one of the names of God. There are many millions of names, of which “Krishna” is the chief. Because this word, Krishna, means all attractive, because He’s fully opulent. Just like if, in this material world, if one man is very rich, he’s attractive. He draws attention of the people in general. If he’s very powerful, he draws attention. If he’s very reputed, famous, he draws attention. If he’s very wise, learned, he draws attention. But Krishna has got all these things in fullness. Therefore, He draws attention of everyone. Therefore His name is Krishna. This “Krishna” means all-attractive. He has got all the attractive features. Therefore He’s called Krishna. So Krishna says: “Just try to increase your attachment for Me. Practice this.” It is not difficult. Just like we have got attachment for something here in this material world. Somebody’s attached to do business, somebody’s attached to woman, somebody’s attached to man, somebody’s attached to riches, somebody’s attached to art, somebody’s attached to... So many things. There are many subject matters of attachment. So attachment we have got. That we cannot deny. Everyone. We have got some attachment for something. That attachment should be transferred for Krishna. That is called Krishna consciousness. We are attached to something with consciousness, not blindly. So we have got the consciousness. When we turn our attachment, or train ourself to increase our attachment for Krishna, that is called bhakti-yogam. Bhakti-yogam. You have heard the name of yoga. Yoga means connecting link. So if you practice this bhakti-yoga, then, gradually, you increase your attachment for Krishna. That is the... It is stated also in the Bhagavad-gita: bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah. “If you practice bhakti-yoga, that is called bhaktya, then you can understand Me. Not otherwise.”

 

(lecture ACBS)

 

 

[Guest guest]

Oh come on - don't be too sensitive now [and where did I call you any name?] - I will repsond to this posting later today...

 

bhakta don muntean

[Kulapavana]

"The Talmud says, non-Jewish souls come from the three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. The murder of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by Jews is said by the Talmud to be a holy sacrifice to God (Zohar, III, 2276 and I, 38b and 39a) and the killing of Gentiles (non-Jewish) by beheading is especially recommended (Pesachim, 49b). Maimonides says, "Do not have pity for them. Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see one in difficulty of drowning, do not go to his help - it is right to kill him by your own hand by shoving him into a well or in some other way."

 

Reply:

 

Well that is a case in point of my problem with your posting.

 

That is an anti-semitic interpretation of something that may not even read that way."

 

 

 

imho that can be easily seen as calling people names and using sentiment as substitution for logic. if you see every criticism of Talmud (and there is A LOT of stuff there that any reasonable person may find objectionable) as anti-semitism, then there is no room for intelligent discussion.

 

anyway, like I said earlier, we are wasting precious time on such inferior sources of knowledge.

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

After-Note: I thought that I was responding to the original individual who commented - I see now I replied to another person]

 

QUOTE:

 

imho that can be easily seen as calling people names and using sentiment as substitution for logic. if you see every criticism of Talmud (and there is A LOT of stuff there that any reasonable person may find objectionable) as anti-semitism, then there is no room for intelligent discussion. anyway, like I said earlier, we are wasting precious time on such inferior sources of knowledge.

 

REPLY:

 

I WAS NOT CALLING YOU NAMES – nor was I using - ‘sentiment as substitution for logic’!

 

Did you not understand my posting? I think you are saying that the Talmud is really a hate literature – and without doubt; some might find [as in your words] a lot of stuff…objectionable – but - why is it worse [in your opinion] when we see that it is Hebrew teachings – when it is also found in ALL Traditions – as noted in my first reply posting [?].

 

Please try to see what that post is advancing - a limited interpretation!

 

For example – what is your central point in your posting to me?

 

Is it that you think Jews are bad for having such [ideas] texts in their writings – or - they are bad - for not rejecting their entire tradition – what is it?

 

You say that - “we are wasting precious time on such inferior sources of knowledge.” – then you missed the point.

 

Lets’ go back to your one point – you are using Talmud to try to convince me that Hebrews now believe in Satan? By posting that quote about the origin of souls?

 

Well in proper context – we understand that the point of that quote cannot be correct – as there simply is no Satan.

 

Also - to say that all hebrews have had the same ideas all through time is incorrect and narrow - and there are examples in the Bible of false worship entering their Tradition in times past - could some of the Talmud verses you speak of - be discussing that?

 

Thus there is no satanic realm – the facts are the facts – Satan is a fictional interpolation.

 

Without doubt after the interpolation - some Hebrews chose to believe in an actual Satan - St. Paul of Christianity is one example.

 

That these ideas appear in later texts - has to be understood in proper context.

 

In any tradition we can see that later books may seem to contradict earlier texts – if we take a proper interpretation - in context - with regard to time and circumstances – then we have a basis to form an opinion – I do not how much more clear I can make that.

 

I assume that you are a follower of the Vedic path – have you ever preached to people some of those verses that describe how ignorant people are now – just how do 'meat-eaters' see our teachings?

 

What about those vedic verses that state humans without God Consciousness are no better than animals – how would modern secular humanists interpret that - just see - do you get the point?

 

When I started reading Bhagavad Gita [translation by Prabhupada] I was quite offended by many points I read – thinking - ‘oh how nasty for him to say like that’ – and many other people I’ve encountered have noted that as well - in their condemnation of our traditon.

 

So to the point – in your own tradition there are a great deal of points ‘in the books’ – which outsiders might find objectionable if taken only on the surface – without regard to context.

 

You cannot miss the point about - time and circumstances and context – if one disregards that then we really do miss the point!

 

You accuse me of not using logic – but I think that the logical answers I gave in my first posting were not rebutted by you – you only claimed that I called you names - instead of answering – and that isn’t true.

 

You seem fixated on these [so-called] Talmud quotes – so - if we are to discuss them - then first – can you show us where you got them?

 

Who the translator was etc., let’s start there – in fact – why not find them - on the online Talmud link I posted – let’s start there – then we can test the veracity of the translation in your quotes.

 

Do know that I said that the interpretations were anti-Semitic – not that I said that you are an anti-Semite - do check my words!

 

I do not know you – so how could I know if that were true?

 

If you are – that is your business too – but I would ask you to just see what Krishna and Srila Prabhupada say [that might help here]:

 

“One who sees the Supersoul in every living being and equal everywhere does not degrade himself by his mind. Thus he approaches the transcendental destination.” [bG 13.29]

 

"…Unfortunately, especially in this age of Kali, everyone is an atheist, people do not even believe in God, what to speak of following His words. The words nija-veda-patha can also mean “one’s own set of religious principles.” Formerly there was only one veda-patha, or set of religious principles. Now there are many. It doesn’t matter which set of religious principles one follows: the only injunction is that he must follow them strictly. An atheist, or nastika, is one who does not believe in the Vedas. However, even if one takes up a different system of religion, according to this verse he must follow the religious principles he has accepted. Whether one is a Hindu, or a Mohammedan or a Christian, he should follow his own religious principles. However, if one concocts his own religious path within his mind, or if one follows no religious principles at all, he is punished in the hell known as Asi-patravana. In other words, a human being must follow some religious principles. If he does not follow any religious principles, he is no better than an animal. As Kali-yuga advances, people are becoming godless and taking up so-called secularism. They do not know the punishment awaiting them in Asi-patravana, as described in this verse.” [srimad Bhagavatam 5.26.15, Purport]

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

I found this for you - it talks about the history of this ZOHAR text:

 

"The Jews were not exempt from disputes with scholars of Islam also during the first years of the latter's history, but these disputes differed from those with the Christians in that they did not involve the Jews in calamities. In addition to the oral disputes, many controversial books appeared between the ninth and the sixteenth centuries, among which were the books of Saadiah the Gaon against the Karaites, which the Karaites answered, not with arguments, but with scoffing.

 

A great quantity of books were issued by the Karaites in which they ridiculed the Rabbis, in particular Saadiah the Gaon, who exposed their weaknesses.

 

Like service was performed by the book of Samuel ben Chaphni Hakohen, entitled "To Exalt the Value of Theological Studies," against whom the Karaite Samuel ben Jehudah Eben Agia wrote a pamphlet under the title "Strenuous Denial." R. Jehudah Halevi's "Hakusri" and Maimonides' controversial letters also had for their aim the strengthening of the foundations of the creed.

 

But the strife raged with the greatest intensity in Spain in the middle of the twelfth century. First appeared the book on "Sepher Habrith" by R. Joseph Kimchi. Following this came controversial works by R. Jacob b. Reuben, R. Moses b.

 

p. 100

 

[paragraph continues] Tikun, and R. Moses b. Solomon, of Saliri, the title of the latter's book being "A Word of Faith," in which he records disputes with Christians; by R. Jechiel b. Joseph, of Paris, R. Nathan, of Upsala, R. Joseph, and R. Meir b. Simeon, in his book "The Battle of Merit," in which are related his disputes with the Archbishop of Narbonne; and by R. Mordecai b. Tehosaph in his book, "The Strengthener of Faith," written against the Christian, Paul Christianus, who had held many controversies with Ramban and others.

 

In reply to the book of Abner of Burgos, who adopted the name of Alphonse of Valladolid, and who wrote much that was hostile to Judaism, appeared works by R. Isaac Ebn Palkara, as well as by R. Joseph Shalom, under the title of "A Reply to Alfonso's Writings." How great a degree of tolerance the Jews manifested in this controversy may be seen from what Moses of Narbonne wrote of Abner, his former friend--namely, that he was intelligent and virtuous, but dispairing; unable to endure the calamities heaped upon the Jewish people; not content with the peace to his soul, but seeking also worldly happiness; and, reading in the stars that the Jews destiny was to suffer and bear trials, he fell into the error of thinking that they would never again be strong as a nation, and counselled them as he himself had done, to accept Christianity, not submit to their fate. R. Moses de Torsilla, also wrote a book entitled "Aid to Faith" (1374), consisting of seventeen chapters, in the form of a dialogue between professors of the two religions. In all these books it is declared that the Hagadas of the Talmud are not authoritative but are to be regarded barely as fiction, and as devoid of any sacredness. In Germany also appeared in defense of Judaism the work "Book of Victory" (Sepher Nitzachon), by the excellent writer, R. Lipman of Muelhausen, which appears to have made so deep an impression that the Bishop of Brandenburg, Stephen Batekei, felt it necessary to reply to it.

 

Lastly may be mentioned the two disputes which took place between the Rabbis and the Frankists in 1756-1757, at the command of Bishops Dembovsky and Micholsky, in Kamenitz, Podolsk and Lemberg, cities of Poland. These terminated the disputes which the Jews were compelled to hold with their opponents in the presence of the people and dignitaries.

 

They

 

p. 101

 

were distinguished by the fact that the Frankists impeached the authority of the Talmud on the strength of the Midrash of R. Simeon b. Jochai, termed "Zohar," which they considered sacred, while they regarded the Talmud as profane. These disputes were further distinguished by the circumstance that the founder of the Hasidismus, R. Israel baal Shem Tob, was elected as the chief disputant to represent the Rabbis, forced to dispute with the Frankists in Micholsky's presence. The Frankists were an offshoot of the sect of the false Messiah, Shabattai Zvi, who produced a storm throughout the whole world in the year 1654. One Jacob Frank, a Polish Jew, accepted Islamism at Salonica, where he joined the sect of Shabattai Zvi, who were seeming Mohammedans and were called Dauma. In 1754 he arrived in Poland and set to work, with the assistance of two Rabbis, Moses and Nachman, who accompanied him, to revive the creed of Shabattai Zvi. The followers of Shabattai Zvi, who still remained in Poland, received him with open arms, and entered upon an open propagation of the mischievous teachings. The Jews thereupon informed the ecclesiastical authorities of the country of their activity, which so alarmed them that they hastened to the Bishop and asserted their belief in the Trinity, and that they were not Talmudic Jews, but followers of the Zohar--"Zoharites."

 

They petitioned Bishop Dembovsky of Kamenitz to force the Jews to dispute with them and thus afford them opportunity to prove that the only true belief is in one God in three persons, incarnate in the flesh, and the teaching of the Talmud all vanity, etc., a rehabilitation of all the old slanderous charges. The Bishop ordered the dispute to begin in May, 1754; and the Jews, not appearing at the appointed time, incurred a heavy fine therefor. In June of that year there assembled at Kamenitz thirty Rabbis, from whom were chosen as disputants R. Leib Meziboz, R. Bar Jozelovitz, R. Mendel Satanow, and R. Joseph Kremenetz; and about the same number of Frankists, headed by Leib Krim of Nadvarna, Soloman Shur of Rahatin and Nachman of Bushk. The pleading of the Rabbis that in the Zohar and in all the books of Israel there is no hint of a Trinity, which was purely an invention of the Frankists themselves, was of no avail, for Dembovsky decided against the Jews and fined them 5,000 gold guldens, to be paid to the Frankists, and also directed the

 

p. 102

 

Jews to dispute with the latter whenever called upon; one hundred and fifty gold guldens were likewise to be paid by the Jews for the repair of the Christian Cathedral at Kamenitz. All copies of the Talmud were to be burned, although the Jews appealed to the King, August III., against this decree of Dembovsky, claiming that they possessed the right, accorded to them by previous rulers, to print the Talmud; and although they were sustained in this contention by many princes of the kingdom, yet, owing to the political and religious turmoil then existing throughout the kingdom, the king or his minister, could give no heed to the matter, and the Jews were forced to submit to the decree of the bishop. Shortly thereafter, however, Dembovsky died a sudden death (the result of an injury received, it is related, from a fire which consumed the Talmud), and was succeeded by Labinsky, who showed no favor to the Frankists. The Jews, with the help of the government officials and an expenditure of money, effected the expulsion of the Frankists from their residence near Kamenitz, for being neither Jews nor Christians, and they suffered persecutions. They were compelled to shave part of their heads and half of their beard; insults and indignities were heaped upon them, and many fled to Turkey. But even there they found no rest; they were relentlessly persecuted, and Elisha Ratin, one of their leaders, was beaten to death. They therefore betook themselves to the frontiers between Poland and Turkey, in constant peril of their lives from the people of both nations. When their condition became unbearable, they turned again to the king, and begged him to restore to them the freedom granted by Dembovsky. In this they succeeded; the king permitted them in May, 1757, to settle undisturbed in the province of Podalia. And thus they returned to Poland, in poverty and rags. In this state of degradation Frank advised them, in order to better their condition, to embrace Christianity. They therefore, in January, 1758, sent a petition to the Bishop Labinsky by six of their leaders, asking that they be received into the Catholic Church and be granted permission to dispute with the Talmudic Jews, who drink the blood of Christian infants, etc. Labinsky replied that it was not in his power to improve their material condition; their acceptance of Christianity could affect only their spiritual welfare. They again addressed themselves to the king, in May

 

p. 103

 

of the same year, but their petition was not answered. Labinsky suddenly resigned his office and Micholsky was chosen his successor. The latter exhibited a great zeal for proselyting, and the Frankists hastened to present their petition to him, requesting permission, before being baptized, to dispute again with the Jews. Perhaps, they urged, they might succeed in convincing the Jews of their great error and madness and in inducing them to accept Christianity too. Micholsky acceded to this request, and ordered the Jewish Rabbis to assemble at Lemberg on a day appointed by him.

 

At the time set for the dispute there came in sorrow to Lemberg, forty of the chief Rabbis of Poland, at their head Israel Besht of Mezibuz, and chose as disputants three of them--Besht, the Rabbi of the district, Haim Rapoport, and R. Bär Jozelovitz. The disputants for the Frankists were Frank himself, Leib Krim, and Solomon Shur.

 

The dispute lasted three days, beginning June 23, 1758, and the hopes of the Frankists for a victory were shattered.

 

Though Micholsky and many Polish nobles sided with them, they failed to prove that the Zohar contained anything that favored their religion. The judges, even, utterly disagreed with the distortions to which they subjected the passages of the Zohar and Kabbalistic books. The Jewish Rabbis departed in peace, without being fined, and the petition of their adversaries, that a district in Poland be set apart for their dwelling, was refused, and they were invited to receive baptism. Thus ended favorably for the Jews the last of these peculiar disputes. The Jews made efforts to induce the Frankists to become Christians as soon as possible, that there might in future be no relationship, between them. In this they succeeded, and since that time, between the Frankists, as Christians, and the Jews there has been nothing in common in either religious or secular matters.

"

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht118.htm

[suchandra]

You said, "too bad it's slanted toward [an un-devotee like] anti-semitic thinking." And that's insulting.

Since it is of very great importance for you to point out that there's no Satan impact to global politics what I found by Googling:

 

RELIGION LIBERATES

VS.

SATAN CONTROLS

 

“Three things should be taken care of immediately: fire, disease and debt.” (Chanakya Pandit)

 

Satan Myth and impact to global politics?

 

U.S.National Debt Clock July 2005

Debt: $7,841,945,678,666

Your family's Share:$124,884

 

And so it goes - worldwide - countries in debt, nations in debt, families in debt.

Exposing corruption in the world's monetary (Satan's) system should be pushed. The spirit of Satan is manifested on planet earth through the spirit of "Mammon". People having sold their own souls and bodies to an economic system and its enslavement in exchange for survival. India: thousands of indebted farmers to commit suicide by the command of Satan:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4548927.stm

 

 

Brihad-bhägavatamrita 2.3.180

 

sarveSAM sAdhanAnAM tat-sAkSAt-kAro hi sat-phalam |

tadaivAmUlato mAyA nazyet premApi vardhate ||180||

 

The direct vision of Krishna is the true result of all the devotional practices. Through such vision, one's illusory concept is completely destroyed and one's love for Krishna increases.

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Hari Bol!

 

What's insulting is your incomplete and slanted facts.

 

Are you fixated on this Satan concept? Do you need to think he is real?

 

As a devotee you know the reasons for the 'satanic like' world we see - it is kuli yuga and - it even at times seems that the Personality of Kuli has hijacked the modes of material nature and kidnapped maya into his service.

 

But there is no satan - I see no value in ascribing to an idea whose origins are fiction.

 

You are a sincere devotee i can see that - but how broad minded are you?

 

I never meant to insult you when I posted that your posting was slanted with anti-semitic reasoning.

 

You haven't cut and pasted any of my reply and debated it?

 

I have to ask - why not?

 

So in any case let's get over this point that I called you a name - let's discuss the points.

 

You know that ZOHAR is not considered scripture.

 

Did you read the short history lesson about the frankists?

 

Isn't it part of good debate to try to debate?

 

So tell me why weren't the ideas you posted [not saying they are your ideas] anti-semitic?

 

YS,

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Here is an example of the Jewish Torah [Midrash] commentary:

 

A Gentile once asked Rabbi Yoshua ben Kapara, "Is it true that ye say your God sees the future?Yes," was

 

{p. 242}

 

the reply. "Then how is it that it is written (Gen. vi. 6), 'And it grieved Him at His heart'?Hast thou," replied the Rabbi, "ever had a boy born to thee?Yes," said the Gentile; "and I rejoiced and made others rejoice with me.Didst thou not know that he would eventually die?" asked the Rabbi. "Yes," answered the other; "but at the time of joy is joy, and at the time of mourning, mourning?So it is before the Holy One--blessed be He!--seven days he mourned before the deluge destroyed the world."

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/hl92.htm

 

Use of the word gentile must be understood in context - much like our use of the word karmi and mleccha.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

More from Talmud:

 

By forty-eight things the law is acquired. These are study, attention, careful conversation, mental discernment, solicitude, reverential fear, meekness, geniality of soul, purity, attention to the wise, mutual discussion, debating, sedateness, learning in the Scripture and the Mishna, not dabbling in commerce, self-denial, moderation in sleep, aversion to gossip, etc., etc. [Canto 58, Avoth, ch. 6]

 

Sound like anything from Gita?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

In a proper Hebrew spiritual discourse - there are four interpretive items to proper understanding of a text - i.e.: is the text literal allegorical mystical or homiletical.

 

Most Rabbi will take the second and third item over the first - in dealing with texts having discourse about demons.

 

With that in mind - just see what you can take away from this nice Talmud quote:

 

...Six things are said respecting demons. In three particulars they are like angels, and in three they resemble men.

 

They have wings like angels; like angels they fly from one end of the world to the other, and they know the future, as angels do, with this difference, that they learn by listening behind the veil what angels have revealed to them within. In three respects they resemble men. They eat and drink like men, they beget and increase like men, and like men they die. Chaggigah, fol. 16, col. 1.

 

The Talmud is particularly rich in demonology, and many are the forms which the evil principle assumes in its pages. We have no wish to drag these shapes to the light, and interrogate them as to the part they play in this intricate life. Enough now if we mention the circumstance of their existence, and introduce to the reader the story of Ashmedai, the king of the demons. The story is worth relating, both for its own sake and its historical significance.

 

In Ecclesiastes ii. 8, we read, "I gat me men singers and women singers, the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts." These last seven words represent only two in the original Hebrew, Shiddah-veshiddoth. These two words in the original Hebrew translated by the last seven in this verse, have been a source of great perplexity to the critics, and their exact meaning is matter of debate to this hour. They in the West say they mean severally

 

{p. 77}

 

carriages for lords and carriages for ladies, while we, says the Babylonish Talmud, interpret them to signify male demons and female demons. Whereupon, if this last is the correct rendering, the question arises, for what purpose Solomon required them? The answer is to be found in 1 Kings vi. 7, where it is written, "And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither," etc. For before the operation commenced Solomon asked the Rabbis, "How shall I accomplish this without using tools of iron?" and they remembering of an insect which had existed since the creation of the world, whose powers were such as the hardest substances could not resist, replied, "There is the Shameer, with which Moses cut the precious stones of the Ephod." Solomon asked, "And where, pray, is the Shameer to be found?" To which they made answer, "Let a male demon and a female come, and do thou coerce them both; mayhap they know and will reveal it to thee." He then conjured into his presence a male and a female demon, and proceeded to torture them, but in vain, for said they, "We know not its whereabouts and cannot tell; perhaps Ashmedai, the king of the demons, knows." On being further interrogated as to where he in turn might be found, they made this answer: "In yonder mount is his residence; there he has dug a pit, and, after filling it with water, covered it over with a stone, and sealed with his own seal. Daily he ascends to heaven and studies in the school of wisdom there, then he comes down and studies in the school of wisdom here; upon which he goes and examines the seal, then opens the pit, and after quenching his thirst, covers it up again, re-seals it, and takes his departure."

 

Solomon thereupon sent Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, provided with a magic chain and ring, upon both of which the name of God was engraved. He also provided him with a fleece of wool and sundry skins with wine. Then Benaiah went and sank a pit below that of Ashmedai, into which he drained off the water and plugged the duct between with the fleece. Then he set to and dug another hole higher up with a channel leading into the emptied pit of Ashmedia, by means of which the pit was filled with the wine be had brought. After leveling the ground so as not to rouse suspicion, he withdrew to a tree close by, so as to watch the result and wait his opportunity. After a while Ashmedai came, and examined the seal, when, seeing it all right, he raised the stone, and to his surprise found wine in the pit. For a time he stood muttering and saying, it is written, "Wine is a mocker: strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." And again, "Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart." Therefore at first he was unwilling to drink, but being thirsty, he could not long resist the temptation. He proceeded to drink therefore, when, becoming intoxicated, he lay down to sleep. Then Benaiah, came forth from his ambush, and stealthily approaching, fastened the chain round the sleeper's neck. Ashmedai, when he awoke, began to fret and fume, and would have torn off the chain that bound him, had not Benaiah warned him, saying, "The name of

 

{p. 78}

 

thy Lord is upon thee." Having thus secured him, Benaiah proceeded to lead him away to his sovereign master. As they journeyed along they came to a palm-tree, against which Ashmedai rubbed himself, until he uprooted it and threw it down. When they drew near to a hut, the poor widow who inhabited it came out and entreated him not to rub himself against it, upon which, as he suddenly bent himself back, he snapt a bone of his body, and said, "This is that which is written (Prov. xxv. 15), 'And a gentle answer breaketh the bone.'" Descrying a blind man straying out of his way, he hailed him and directed him aright. He even did the same service to a man overcome with wine, who was in a similar predicament. At sight of a wedding party that passed rejoicing along, he wept; but he burst into uncontrollable laughter when he heard a man order at a shoemaker's stall a pair of shoes that would last seven years; and when he saw a magician at his work he broke forth into shrieks of scorn.

 

On arriving at the royal city, three days were allowed to pass before he was introduced to Solomon. On the first day he said, "Why does the king not invite me into his presence?He has drunk too much," was the answer, "and the wine has overpowered him." Upon which he lifted a brick and placed it upon the top of another. When this was communicated to Solomon, he replied "He meant by this, go and make him drunk again." On the day following he asked again, "Why does the king not invite me into his presence?" They replied, "He has eaten too much." On this he removed the brick again from the top of the other. When this was reported to the king, he interpreted it to mean, "Stint him in his food."

 

After the third day, he was introduced to the king; when measuring off four cubits upon the floor with the stick he held in his hand, he said to Solomon, "When thou diest, thou wilt not possess in this world (be referred to the grave) more than four cubits of earth. Meanwhile thou has conquered the world, yet thou wert not satisfied until thou hadst overcome me also." To this the king quietly replied, "I want nothing of thee, but I wish to build the Temple and have need of the Shameer." To which Ashmedai at once answered, "The Shameer is not committed in charge to me, but to the Prince of the Sea, and he intrusts it to no one except to the great wild cock, and that upon an oath that he return it to him again." Whereupon Solomon asked, "And what does the wild cock do with the Shameer?" To which the demon replied, "He takes it to a barren rocky mountain, and by means of it he cleaves the mountain asunder, into the cleft of which, formed into a valley, he drops the seeds of various plants and trees, and thus the place becomes clothed with verdure and fit for habitation." This is the Shameer (Lev. xi. 19), Nagger Tura, which the Targum renders Mountain Splitter.

 

They therefore searched for the nest of the wild cock, which they found contained a young brood. This they covered with a glass, that the bird might see its young, but not be able to get at them. When accordingly the bird came and found his nest impenetrably glazed over, he

 

{p. 79}

 

went and fetched the Shameer. Just as he was about to apply it to the glass in order to cut it, Solomon's messenger gave a startling shout, and this so agitated the bird that he dropped the Shameer, and Solomon's messenger caught it up and made off with it. The cock thereupon went and strangled himself, because he was unable to keep the oath by which he had bound himself to return the Shameer.

 

Benaiah asked Ashmedai why, when he saw the blind man straying, he so promptly interfered to guide him? "Because," he replied, "it was proclaimed in heaven that that man was perfectly righteous, and that whosoever did him a good turn would earn a title to a place in the world of the future.And when thou sawest the man overcome with wine wandering out of his way, why didst thou put him right again?" Ashmedai said, "Because it was made known in heaven that that man was thoroughly bad, and I have done him a good service that he might not lose all, but receive some good in the world that now is.Well, and why didst thou weep when thou sawest the merry wedding-party pass?Because," said he, "the bridegroom was fated to die within thirty days and the bride must needs wait thirteen years for her husband's brother, who is now but an infant" (see Deut. xxv. 5-10). "Why didst thou laugh so when the man ordered a pair of shoes that would last him seven years?" Ashmedai replied, "Because the man himself was not sure of living seven days.And why," asked Benaiah, "didst thou jeer when thou sawest the conjuror at his tricks?Because," said Ashmedai, "the man was at that very time sitting on a princely treasure, and he did not, with all his pretension, know that it was under him."

 

Having once acquired a power over Ashmedai, Solomon detained him till the building of the Temple was completed. One day after this, when they were alone, it is related that Solomon, addressing him, asked him, "What, pray, is your superiority over us, if it be true, as it is written (Num. xxiii. 22), 'He has the strength of a unicorn,' and the word 'strength,' as tradition alleges, means 'ministering angels,' and the word 'unicorn' means 'devils'?" Ashmedai replied, "Just take this chain from my neck, and give me thy signet-ring, and I'll soon show thee my superiority." No sooner did Solomon comply with this request, than Ashmedai, snatching him up, swallowed him; then stretching forth his wings--one touching the heaven and the other the earth--he vomited him out again to a distance of four hundred miles. It is with reference to this time that Solomon says (Eccl. i. 3; ii. 10), "What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? This is my portion of all my labor." What does the word this mean? Upon this point Rav and Samuel are at variance, for the one says it means his staff, the other holds that it means his garment or water-jug; and that with one or other Solomon went about from door to door begging; and wherever he came he said (Eccl. i. 12), "I, the preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem." When in his wanderings he came to the house of the Sanhedrin, the Rabbis reasoned and said, if he were mad he would

 

{p. 80}

 

not keep repeating the same thing over and over again; therefore what does he mean? They therefore inquired of Benaiah, "Does the king ask thee into his presence?" He replied, "No!" They then sent to see whether the king visited the hareem. And the answer to this was, "Yes, he comes." Then the Rabbis sent word back that they should look at his feet, for the devil's feet are like those of a cock. The reply was, "He comes to us in stockings." Upon this information the Rabbis escorted Solomon back to the palace, and restored to him the chain and the ring, on both of which the name of God was engraven. Arrayed with these, Solomon advanced straightway into the presence-chamber. Ashmedai sat at that moment on the throne, but as soon as he saw Solomon enter, he took fright and raising his wings, flew away, shrieking back into invisibility. In spite of this, Solomon continued in great fear of him; and this explains that which is written (Song of Songs, iii. 7, 8), "Behold the bed which is Solomon's; threescore valiant men are about it, of the valiant of Israel; they all hold swords, being expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh, because of fear in the night." (See Gittin, fol. 68, cols. 1, 2.)

 

Ashmedai is the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit, iii. 8, vi. 14, etc. The Shameer is mentioned in Jer. xvii. 1, Ezek. iii. 9; Zech. vii. 12. The Seventy in the former passage and the Vulgate passim take it for the diamond.

 

Six things are said respecting the children of men, in three of which they are like angels, and in three they are like animals. They have intelligence like angels, they walk erect like angels, and they converse in the holy tongue like angels. They eat and drink like animals, they generate and multiply like animals, and they relieve nature like animals. [Chaggigah, fol. 16, col. 1.]

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Prabhuji - no comments on my replies?

[gHari]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Still no reply? Whaaas-uuuppp?

[Kulapavana]

"I think you are saying that the Talmud is really a hate literature – and without doubt; some might find [as in your words] a lot of stuff…objectionable – but - why is it worse [in your opinion] when we see that it is Hebrew teachings – when it is also found in ALL Traditions – as noted in my first reply posting [?]."

 

you judge things (scriptures too) by the results. people from Abrahamic traditions were butchering each other (and others) in the name of their religions for close to 3000 years now. all because of the bigoted concepts expressed in their original scriptures. the slaughter continues to this very day. look at the roots of it.

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

That isn't exactly fair and [NO I'm not calling you names but] - don't you sound like a "bigot" yourself?

 

Is it easier for you - to accept some muddled facts rather than do some real homework?

 

I posted all kinds of real facts about this 'book of Zohar' etc., I also explained that Kuli Yuga it isn't a problem unique to Jews.

 

You accused me of using what was that - "sentiment as substitution for logic" - now for certain - it is seen that that is what YOU are doing.

 

Prove that the orignal posted ideas expressed about Talmud are correct - try to prove that your assertions are correct.

 

If you think your Tradition is so much better in this regard - then - why do you have this poor 'exclusivity' attitude?

 

Furthermore - you didn't answer how you view those people who are described in negative terms within the vedic tetxs - nor did you explain how you think they view our tradition - do you NOT get the point?

 

In any case as I see it - you should actually try to rebut some of my postings or - do not waste your time...

 

Yer servant,

[Kulapavana]

"Prove that the orignal posted ideas expressed about Talmud are correct."

 

I do not care at all about Talmud and do not consider it to be of any value to me. All I was saying was that it contains a lot of material many people find very, very objectionable.

 

"If you think your Tradition is so much better in this regard - then - why do you have this poor 'exclusivity' attitude?"

 

on a personal level, we must exclude things that are of no value to us. Talmud may have value for Jews, but not for devotees of Krishna.

 

"you didn't answer how you view those people who are described in negative terms within the vedic tetxs - nor did you explain how you think they view our tradition - do you NOT get the point?"

 

in the Vedas people are described negatively based on their actual qualities, not their race or a particular type of worship of God they practice. as to how they wiew our tradition: you need to ask them.

 

as I said: judge things by the results. that is the ultimate verification of value.

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

That answer is not a good one - so I'll say it - checkmate.

 

As for the fact that you say "in the Vedas people are described negatively based on their actual qualities, not their race or a particular type of worship of God" - that is a matter of semantics.

 

Should I post some texts to demonstrate the point?

 

Krishna himself says of demigod worshipers:

 

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." [bG 7.23]

 

"...The people of this age will not perform any sacrifice. The mleccha population will care very little for performances of sacrifices, although performance of sacrifice is essential for persons who are materially engaged in sense enjoyment..." [sB 1.16.20, purport]

 

"...The above-mentioned historical names are different nations of the world. Even those who are constantly engaged in sinful acts are all corrigible to the standard of perfect human beings if they take shelter of the devotees of the Lord. Jesus Christ and Muhammad, two powerful devotees of the Lord, have done tremendous service on behalf of the Lord on the surface of the globe..." [sB 2.4.18, purport]

 

"...The Sanskrit words yavana and mleccha apply to those who do not follow the Vedic principles...One who does not follow all these rules and regulations is called a yavana or mleccha. One should not mistakenly think that these words refer to certain classes of men in other countries. There is no question of limitation according to nationalism. Whether one lives in India or outside of India, he is called a yavana or mleccha if he does not follow the Vedic principles..." [sB 4.27.24, purport]

 

"The mind is the root cause of lust, anger, pride, greed, lamentation, illusion and fear. Combined, these constitute bondage to fruitive activity. What learned man would put faith in the mind?" [sB 5.6.5]

 

"A man must elevate himself by his own mind, not degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy as well." [bG 6.5]

 

"One who sees the Supersoul in every living being and equal everywhere does not degrade himself by his mind. Thus he approaches the transcendental destination." [bG 13.29]

 

"...Unfortunately, especially in this age of Kali, everyone is an atheist, people do not even believe in God, what to speak of following His words. The words nija-veda-patha can also mean “one’s own set of religious principles.” Formerly there was only one veda-patha, or set of religious principles. Now there are many. It doesn’t matter which set of religious principles one follows: the only injunction is that he must follow them strictly...even if one takes up a different system of religion, according to this verse he must follow the religious principles he has accepted. Whether one is a Hindu, or a Mohammedan or a Christian, he should follow his own religious principles..." [sB 5.26.15, purport]

 

"...In all religions, temple worship and acceptance of authority are present. We may accept Krishna, or Lord Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, or Lord Buddha, or Sankaracarya, or Guru Nanak, but in any case acceptance of authority is required..." [Elevation to Krishna consciousness, chapter 6]

 

"...God is known by many names, according to His different qualities and activities. In the Bible he is known as Jehovah (“the almighty one”), in the Koran as Allah (“the great one”)..." [Quest for Enlightenment, Introduction]

 

"...We don’t even demand you say “Krishna.” You can say “jehovah.” you can say “Yahweh.”..." [sb 5.5.1, lecture]

 

"...spiritually, the name Krishna or the name Allah or the name jehovah is as good as the Supreme Personality of Godhead..." [lecture, June 15, 1968]

 

"...Muhammadanism also Vaishnavism, because Muhammad says, “I am servant of God, Allah.”..." [Conversation, June 09, 1974]

 

I could find many more texts in this regard - so in any event - do not think that we are immune to Kuli Yuga.

 

Just see the mess even in ISKCON - do we all get along?

 

No. Why not?

 

So in any event - I think that there are under-pinning reasons for this attitude in you - and I am sure that you'll never admit what it is.

 

Yes I'll judge this interaction with you by its result...

 

Of course we all know:

 

"...In this movement there are many different races of men from all parts of the world participating, but because they think of themselves as servants of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they do not differentiate between black and white, yellow and red..." [sB 4.22.29]

[Kulapavana]

none of the passages you quoted comes anywhere near the controversy of the earlier listed talmudic passages. check mate? lol... find me a passage in the vedic literature, where a supposedly great holy man and religious leader like Moses orders a MASS MURDER of anybody in his tribe (including innocent women and children) who does not believe in his god (and who keeps alive his brother, who instructed his tribe to worship false gods). such mass murders were carried out quite often back then. all to get the "promised land"...

 

anyway, I find no benefit or pleasure discussing such crow like topics. please accept my obeisances and apologies for any offences I might have comitted... Hare Krishna!

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Well too bad that's all you've to say!

 

Quote:

 

none of the passages you quoted comes anywhere near the controversy of the earlier listed talmudic passages

 

Reply:

 

I demonstrated very well that that isn't what is found in Talmud - you failed to prove me wrong.

 

Now you jump to the exodus narration and make a comment on that!

 

So how about this:

 

What vedic text encourages the practice of SATI - you know 'widow burning'?

 

Of course that is only one example - there are more.

 

Do I have to post them?

 

You rejected what Prabhupada says - it must be easier that way to ascribe to your exclusivity - and here I thought only the misguided evangelicals had that problem.

 

Quote:

 

anyway, I find no benefit or pleasure discussing such crow like topics

 

Reply:

 

Then why did you interject into the discussion?

 

Now you want to run away - because you're not doing so well - oh well!

 

Quote:

 

please accept my obeisances and apologies for any offences I might have comitted

 

Reply:

 

You never created offense to me - but you are degrading yourself as Krishna says:

 

"One who sees the Supersoul in every living being and equal everywhere does not degrade himself by his mind. Thus he approaches the transcendental destination." [bG 13.29]

 

So take care and be aware that your next birth could be as someone in a group you do not like...

[Kulapavana]

sati was encouraged in the Vedas as a strictly volountary act. it DOES NOT come anywhere NEAR the mass murder of thousands of innocent people sanctioned by a religious leader. if you can't see that - you are hopelessly blind.

 

I entered the discussion because you seem to be interested in our path yet you focus too much on inferior sources of knowledge. It is called a comment from a fellow traveller. dont like it? I'm sorry...

 

...and I will be born wherever Krishna sends me, I dont really have a great preference.