The Origins of the Satan Myth and impact to global politics

[Guest guest]

Arjuna said: 'I see all the gods and all living entities assembled in Your body, o Lord; Lord Brahmâ seated on the lotus and Lord Shiva, and also the great sages and all serpents...

With crowns, maces and discs and an effulgence on all sides I have difficulty seeing you glowing everywhere as the immeasurable blazing fire of the radiating sun...

For sure all that is between heaven and earth is pervaded by You alone and by seeing all this of Your wonderful form in all directions, the three worlds are trembling, o Great Soul... etc..

 

Licking, You devour the people from all directions with Your flaming mouths covering the universe with all the terribly scorching rays of Your effulgence, o Vishnu...

Please explain me who You, in this fearsome form, are. I offer You, o great God, my obeisances, be so good to me; I wish to know the original of You as I surely do not to comprehend Your mission... etc..

 

Text 32

The Supreme Lord said: "Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds engaged here in destroying all people, except for you [brothers] only, will all the soldiers who are situated on both sides, find their end."

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

That's well and good - but the universal form isn't eternal - and the demigods are not aspects of Krishna – not in the sense you are thinking.

 

As Krishna says:

 

“Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages.” [bG 10.2]

 

"...The personal forms of Krishna, the two-handed form and the four-handed, are completely different from the temporary universal form shown to Arjuna..." [bG 11.54, purport]

 

[gHari]

 

Prabhupada and Vyasadeva must have used crooked logic not to follow the straight-forward unambiguous statement of Lord Krishna. Or perhaps they just missed it?

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

I know you well understand these facts!

[gHari]

[bG 10.37]: Of the descendants of VRSNi I am VAsudeva, and of the PANDavas I am Arjuna. Of the sages I am VyAsa, and among great thinkers I am UzanA.

 

Purport excerpt: Amongst the sons of PANDu, Arjuna is famous as DhanaJjaya. He is the best of men and therefore represents KRSNa.

 

 

I think there must be another explanation.

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

And we know "Represents" - means is to 'express indirectly or be symbolic of' - it doesn't mean that if something represents something - it is that something...

 

Yer servant,

 

BDM

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Do you think Krishna is God?

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

This one text is important:

 

"In the mood of Lord Nrsimhadeva, Lord Caitanya ran through the city streets, club in hand, ready to kill all the atheists. [C.C. Adi, 17.92]

 

Word for word:

 

"pasandi — the atheists"

 

The word isn't yavana.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

And by the way, this is the Kali-yuga, not kuli yuga.

 

Reply:

 

Well certainly it is "kali" - but if you thought about it you may have figured-out that I am spelling it most often phonetically.

 

Why am I doing this? I often see people confuse kali ma for the personality of kali - two non-related entities.

 

Just like phonetically spelling - Krsna - Krishna....

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

There is no incarnation or messiah who is predicted to appear in the future, in this age of Kali. Sri Chaitanya has already appeared.

 

Reply:

 

As noted already this messiah fellow isn't an incarnation of God - because he isn't God - or a god.

 

The source texs state he is just a mortal man - like you and me. No mystic powers no special magic ability.

 

The manner where he will become extraordinary - is a matter for another post.

 

At this point let's look at points on why Jesus isn't the hebrew messiah; these are postings I've posted on an evangelical christian board:

 

Quote:

 

16 Dogs have surrounded me;

a band of evil men has encircled me,

they have pierced my hands and my feet. [Psalms 22]

 

Reply:

 

That verse does not actually read that way in the original hebrew - here is the real translation:

 

"17 For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet."

 

In the making of your translation the Hebrew word 'KeAri' - "like a lion they are at my hands and feet" - was CHANGED to 'Kari' - "he gouged me" - thus in your translation it then reads - "they have pierced my hands and feet".

 

Your traslation is not exactly grounded in reality.

 

Why did your early translators make this obvious error?

 

Well certainly it is an example of a falsification of the messianic prophesies - to fit the person of Jesus - all because the real predictions had nothing to say about a crucifiction - thus due to the murder of Jesus by the Roman State -the early translators re-wrote the scriptures.

 

Jesus was indeed an empowered incarnation of God [i know that may anger some when I say that but it is a fact] - but he wasn't the messiah.

 

In fact - a proper reading of the texts show that Jesus stated that His Mission was to 'prepare the way' - for the Messiah!

 

In any event - I thought it important to point out that that translation is in gross error - of course - my translation is from the Hebrew Masoretic Bible.

 

There are many other exmaples in modern Christian Bibles - like the above - introduced by early apologists - to cover over the less than scant possiblity that Jesus was the messiah.

 

Let us NOT make offence to Yeshua by passing over His 'real identity' as mistaken for that of the messiah.

 

The messiah is not God - neither is he an 'incarnation' - not anything like that - he is an extra-regular soul - "...whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days..." - but he is NOT God.

 

Your Servant,

 

-----------------

 

Oh and DO recall Jesus and his angry outburst in the Temple of God - "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought (animals for sacrifice) in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves..." [Matthew 21.12] - Clearly Jesus' major angry out-burst was in the 'Temple' - directed RIGHT at this animal sacrifice activity.

 

--- We should note the connection of what Jesus said that day - to prophet Jeremiah in ch 7. 7-11 [whom he quoted]:

 

"But here you are, putting your trust in deceitful words to your own loss!

 

Are you to steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal, go after strange gods that you know not,

 

and yet come to stand before me in this house which bears my name, and say: "We are safe; we can commit all these abominations again"?

 

Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves? I too see what is being done, says the LORD."

 

Question why evangelicals tell you an interpretation of Matthew 21.12 that says Jesus was responding the cheating money changers.

 

Of course we know that when one went to the Temple in roman occupied Jerusalem to sacrifice - one could not use roman coins [or others] in the Temple - only the coinage of Tyre could be used for the purchases - all other money had to be exchanged for that. So naturally - there were people who exchanged it for them.

 

The evangelicals actually teach a subtle anti-semetic idea of them 'cheating'.

 

In their interpretations they want you to ignore that Jesus was quoting Jeremiah ch 7.11 - and he and his contemporaries knew the 'context' of that quote - it was all to do with a form of - false worship.

 

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought (animals for sacrifice) in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves..."

 

So in fact the second part of that is a confirmation - 'the seats of them that sold doves' - by turning over these tables - so no one could exchange their coins - meant interupting the 'sacrificial business'.

 

That says it all!

 

We should also note that he saw it as an exploitation of the poor - as the doves were for those who could not afford a more expensive sacrifice.

 

Indeed it is also conveyed by the Prophet 'and' Jesus that it is a 'thieving' from God - to think one can engage in sins and later expiate them - by killing animals.

 

Their interpretations aren't true to the whole and original context of the narration.

 

--------------------------

 

 

So explain these two points:

 

Messiah was not to be born until Jerusalem and Bethlehem were a part of a revived Israel:

 

Micah 5.1-2: 1 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee [not exactly him - but his distant maternal family origin] shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days.

 

2 Therefore will He give them [beth-lehem Ephrathah] up, until the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel.

 

It wasn't until June 5, 1967 that Beth-leham was again in Israel's control.

 

So according to this - after the messiah birth comes the recapture of bethlehem.

 

Mistranslation of recall Psalms chapter 22 text 17 [text 16 in your OT] which if reviewed in the proper translation reads: --- "For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." >>>>SOURCE: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2622.htm -- Then in your later 'christian' translations it is rendered QUITE differently: --- "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." >>>>SOURCE: http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=ps+22.16&KJV_version=yes&language=english --- So in these we see: "like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet" - and the changed: "they pierced my hands and my feet" -- In the original Hebrew the word "KeAri" ['Like a Lion'] - is used; in the later 'INTERPOLATED' translation the word Hebrew "KeAri" ['like a lion'] was CHANGED to the Hebrew word "Kari" - ['he gouged me'] - thus the later translation of the text was changed to reflect the [false] theory that Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah [this had to be done because messianic prophesies are associated with this chapter] so they thought that they could bolster the idea that Jesus was the messiah by way of the "crucifiction" of Jesus reflecting this chapter - i.e.: you say that this is a prophesy of Jesus as messiah because of the crucifiction - yet even though Jesus may well have been crucified - there is no connection to that idea in this chapter of the Psalms - indeed Jesus knew this chapter well - it is a favorite of the suffering servants - indeed Jesus may have quoted the second text in the company of many ears at his horrible end: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me..." - yet that also does not mean that he was the messiah - YES - the original creeps in your cult changed the word "KeAri" to "Kari" to support a false teaching - so there you have it!

 

So explain these - if you can... [they couldn't!]

 

------------------------

 

So you didn't really answer the questions.

 

Micah 5.2 reads this way:

 

2 Therefore will He give them [beth-lehem Ephrathah] up, until the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel.

 

Even if that near/far theory which you are eluding to were real - it doesn't fit.

 

God was to 'give up bethlehem' - which he did in 70 C.E. - so then Bethlehem was not under Jewish rule from then forward - until June 05, 1967 - after the time that she who travaileth [i.e.: the human mother of the human messiah] hath brought forth [given birth] - so we know that the two events are close in proximity.

 

Your theory is thin.

 

You 'spunaway' from the other point - psalms 22.16 - the word is certainly 'keAri' [like a lion] - not 'blk' - just consult a Rabbi on this point - your answers are incorrect.

 

Jesus was not, is not, will not be - the Hebrew messiah!

 

You should give up that false teaching and see who he really is - then you can claim to be his follower.

 

--------------------

 

 

You advance a massive writing campain - but it changes nothing - Lord Jesus isn't the messiah.

 

Your explanations of psalms 22 are incorrect - keAri is a hebrew phrase-word that means 'like a lion' - the word was for centuries rendered as kari 'he gouged me' which your translators then rendered into 'they pierced my hands and my feet' - so - why did they do this - your seeming lesson in hebrew grammer means nothing in this discussion.

 

Then with the book of micah your explanations are not sound - the text itself is quite simple and relates nothing of a two-fold completion it simply says that the prophet saw the demise of Israel in 70 C.E. and knew that the messiah would be born around the time that bethlehem was again an Israeli center.

 

The mention of 'bat-gader' fenced in maiden says even more - if we accept that the realization of his birth is after that re-capture... Too many of your quotes aren't even messianic verses...

 

-------------------------

 

 

One good point to consider is that we learn from prophesy that during the messianic age it shall be 'multi-faith' - consider that!

 

"...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it.

 

'For all people will walk every one in the name of his god', and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever." [Micah 4.3-5]

 

So just think about the many mansions parable...

 

Or this important one:

 

"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part." [Mark 9.38-40]

 

So there are many more but that is good for now...

 

Let's Love and Serve God as a united an mature humanity - rather than bickering all the time about what His Name is.

 

------------------------

 

All my points [about the holes in your dogma that are gaping] - are unanswered!

 

Like the proper interpretation of John 14.6 - you never comments on the well known error printed in bibles everywhere:

 

Jesus never claimed that he is the only way - the problem enters in the translation of the word - “comes”:

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. ‘No one comes’ to the Father except through Me." [John 14.6]

 

The word "...comes..." is rendered from the Greek word - "erktai" - a very present tense verb - thus a more proper translation should read:

 

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. 'None here comes' to the Father except through Me."

 

Then you run away from the proper facts about this satan - an interpolated fiction - just see that hebrews do not accept the christian ideas of satan - for them he is rightly an allegorical figure - and THAT is how Lord Jesus understood this satan concept - which was adopted during the 6th century B.C.E. exile in babylon.

 

Why are you last posted words an indication that you are now going to 'run' away?

 

Do know for sure that anyone [not taken in by the falsehoods you are] reading our posted discussion will clearly see that you really failed to explain the good points I made.

 

But who cares about that - I care about the fact that you are being misled - Maria - if you cannot even comment on the Truth of the quotes I gave - then what does that show?

 

I am not asking you to follow me - I am asking 'you to test' your spirits as it were. I am asking you to confirm the reality of some of your ideas.

 

After all - you are telling me that the fictional satan has me in a snare!

 

You think Krishna is satan!

 

I have a question - when a non-christian [like a hindu] prays to God [in the context of their faith] - who hears and answers their prayers?

 

What does God think of those who are 'not' christians - but who still Love and Follow Him and pray in a 'different' Name?

 

Maria - 'what' is 'incorrect' in this quote from God in the Bhagavad Gita:

 

"...These works of sacrifice, of penance and of charity, true to the absolute nature, are performed to please the Supreme Person, O son of Prtha.

 

But sacrifices, austerities and charities performed without faith in the Supreme are nonpermanent, O son of Prtha, regardless of whatever rites are performed. They are called asat and are useless both in this life and the next..."

 

Spunaway - just see that you have 'nothing' to rebut Krishna's lucid words with - nothing but a spiel-sermon of sorts.

 

Do understand that God; Lord Krishna - has appeared 'long before' Lord Jesus - and that it was Lord Krishna who first said that we are saved by 'grace not works' [bhagavad Gita 18.56]:

 

"Though engaged in all kinds of activities [works], My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by My grace."

 

So then G-d also says:

 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." [bG 18.66]

 

Then at last there is this good point:

 

"Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demon becomes envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in his own body and in the bodies of others, and blasphemes against [the] real religion." [bG 16.18]

 

Sri Krishna's dialogue brings out this point:

 

"Arjuna said, O Krsna, what is the situation of one who does not follow the principles of scripture but who worships according to his own imagination? Is he in goodness, in passion or in ignorance?"

 

So Maria 'you' should want to know the answer that God gave him...

 

-------------------------

 

Another common text that is advanced as evidence of Jesus as the messiah is Isaiah 7.14 - where it is claimed there is a prophesy that messiah would be born of a virgin.

 

So let's look at this.

 

"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

 

The word "Virgin" is rendered from the Hebrew word 'ALMAH' - which means "young woman" - the hebrew word for "Virgin" is 'BESULAH' - a different word.

 

This verse was directed at King Ahaz - and it fortold of the birth of King Hezekiah.

 

This verse has no messianic connections.

 

However - there are messianic connections to part of this chapter.

 

----------------------

 

 

Another verse mentioned to support Jesus as the messiah is Isaiah 7.14 - where it is claimed there is a prophesy about the birth of messiah from a "virgin".

 

The word "virgin" in hebrew is 'BESULAH' - the word in verse 7.14 is "ALMAH" - "Young Woman" - why is it changed in the so-called christian bible?

 

The word "ALMAH" - is never rendered as "virgin" - so for instance - in the Hebrew Bible we see the correct rendering:

 

"Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

 

This verse has no connection to Jesus nor the messiah - it is directed at king Ahab - and it foretells the birth of good King Hezekiah.

 

It should be noted that the claim of Jesus appearing in the family of David is also a misnomer - if one takes Jesus to NOT be the 'actual son of Joseph' - then there is no basis to the claim.

 

It's odd that the [so-called] Hebrew writers of the gospel accounts - would make 'this' error.

 

What error you ask? Well Hebrews do 'not' trace a family history on the father's side - they trace it on the mother's side.

 

In the gospel accounts Jesus' claim to the family of David - is made through his step-father Joseph! An odd error!

 

Was Jesus really the son of Joseph? I think so! Why the need for the virgin birth story?

 

Mary was not a decendant of David.

 

Virgin birth - was a cutom theme in the myths of the ancient world - especially in 'Mithraism' - a popular cult which early christianity had to compete with - in fact - much of the two - are mirrors of the other. [more on that later]

 

So in any case Isaiah 7.14 has 'nothing' to do with predicting the 'virgin birth of messiah' - nothing of the sort. It also has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

There are some who think that in chapter 7 of Isaiah there are messianic connections - are there?

 

The answer may be given that - yes there are.

 

A 'partial glimpse' of the character of the messiah - is outlined in text 7.15 - along with a specific dietary designation; vegetarian:

 

"Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good." [isaiah 7.15]

 

It must be noted that MOST of the Hebrew Mystics [and Prophets] espouced this simple diet - as does - TORAH LAW.

 

------------------------

 

 

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

It must be noted that despite the fact that Jesus isn’t the messiah that the Hebrews were/are expecting – does not render the tradition of Christianity or the faith of Christians invalid.

 

Some of what has Prabhupada says about Jesus:

 

…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]

 

…A devotee or saintly person should not be dreadful to others, nor should anyone be a source of dread to him. If one treats others with nonenmity, then no one will become his enemy. There is the example, however, of Jesus Christ, who had enemies, and they crucified him. The demonic are always present, and they find fault even in saintly persons. But a saintly person never becomes angry, even if there is very great provocation.… [sB 4.11.32, purport]

 

…Lord Jesus Christ even tolerated crucifixion… [sB 6.5.44, purport]

 

…Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura gives the following commentary on this verse. In the Western countries, Christians believe that Lord Jesus Christ, their spiritual master, appeared in order to eradicate all the sins of his disciples. To this end, Lord Jesus Christ appeared and disappeared…Lord Jesus Christ certainly finished the sinful reactions of his followers by his mercy, but that does not mean he completely delivered them from the pangs of material existence. A person may be relieved from sins once, but it is a practice among Christians to confess sins and yet commit them again. By getting freed from sins and again engaging in them, one cannot attain freedom from the pangs of material existence. A diseased person may go to a physician for relief, but after he leaves the hospital he may again be infected due to his unclean habits.… [C.C. Madhya 16.163, purport]

 

…Jesus Christ took all the sinful reactions of the people and sacrificed his life. That is the responsibility of a spiritual master.… [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 6]

 

…Bob: Prabhupada, people that engage in religions, like these “Jesus freaks” and other people, claim that Jesus is guiding them. Can this be so?

 

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but they are not taking the guidance. … [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9]

 

 

…Actually, one who is guided by Jesus Christ will certainly get liberation. But it is very hard to find a man who is actually being guided by Jesus Christ.… [Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9]

 

…If Jesus Christ were an ordinary man, then he could not have delivered God consciousness.… [sSR, 4]

 

…As Lord Jesus Christ said, we should hate the sin, not the sinner. That is a very nice statement, because the sinner is under illusion. He is mad. If we hate him, how can we deliver him? Therefore, those who are advanced devotees, who are really servants of God, do not hate anyone.… [Path of Perfection, 3]

 

…Bhakti-yoga means connecting ourselves with Krsna, God, and becoming His eternal associates. Bhakti-yoga cannot be applied to any other objective; therefore in Buddhism, for instance, there is no bhakti-yoga, because they do not recognize the Supreme Lord existing as the supreme objective. Christians, however, practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ, because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore accepting God. Unless one accepts God, there is no question of bhakti-yoga. Christianity, therefore, is also a form of Vaisnavism, because God is recognized. Nonetheless, there are different stages of God realization.… [Path of Perfection, 8]

 

… Christians believe that through His crucifixion Lord Jesus Christ assimilated all the sinful activities of the world’s people. A devotee of the Lord is always thinking of how to assimilate the sufferings of others… [MG, 3]

 

… When the individual soul is specially empowered by the Supreme Soul, that is called avesa. He can act almost like God. We accept, according to this avesa, avesa-avatara incarnation, authorized incarnation, we accept, my Guru Maharaja accepted Lord Jesus Christ and Hazrat Muhammad, this avesa incarnation, almost the same power.… [Lecture 12/13/66]

 

These quotes are about the person of Jesus – not so much about his followers.

 

As noted at the top of this post - just because Jesus isn’t the Hebrew messiah doesn’t mean that he isn’t a - Saktyavesa-avatara - an empowered incarnation of God..

 

BDM

 

 

 

[gHari]

In another thread, Reverend Harry Krishna has concluded that Satan is ahankara. Manifesting as a serpent, he first attacks the soul as it falls from grace from the Garden of Eden.

 

So while he may not have horns and tail, still ahankara is a very real and formidable and indeed the only enemy of each fallen soul in this hell.

 

When they say 'the devil made me do it', well, that is exactly ahankara's function.

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

gHari,

 

Not sure who you mean - which thread?

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/101051/0/collapsed/5/o/1

 

This last post of yours on this thread is all I found.

 

What do you mean - I am a little slow here - is this humor?

 

Yer servant,

 

[gHari]

Your worst nightmare, my friend:

 

Topmost Yoga System -- [ahankara] False ego I have already explained. It is neither matter nor spirit, but the junction--where the spirit soul comes into contact with matter and forgets himself. It is just as, in delirium, a man is diseased and his brain becomes puzzled, and gradually he forgets himself and becomes a madman. He is gradually forgetting. So there is the beginning of loss, and there is one point where he forgets. That beginning point is called ahaGkAra, or false ego.

 

SB 1.2.21p -- This enlightenment perfectly enables the devotee to distinguish spirit from matter because the knot of spirit and matter is untied by the Lord. This knot is called ahaGkAra, and it falsely obliges a living being to become identified with matter.

 

SB 3.12.11p -- Krodha (anger) is the product of kAma (lust), which is the result of the mode of passion. When lust and hankering are unsatisfied, the element of krodha appears, which is the formidable enemy of the conditioned soul. This most sinful and inimical passion is represented as ahaGkAra, or the false egocentric attitude of thinking oneself to be all in all. Such an egocentric attitude on the part of the conditioned soul, who is completely under the control of material nature, is described in Bhagavad-gItA as foolish. The egocentric attitude is a manifestation of the Rudra principle in the heart, wherein krodha (anger) is generated.

 

SB 3.24.18p -- SaMzaya-granthi means "doubtfulness." The knot of doubtfulness is tied when the soul identifies with the material world. That knot is also called ahaGkAra, the junction of matter and spirit.

 

CC Madhya 20.276 -- Sri Caitanya: "First the total material energy is manifested, and from this arise the three types of egotism, which are the original sources from which all demigods [controlling deities], senses and material elements expand.

PURPORT

The three types of egotism (ahaGkAra) are technically known as vaikArika, taijasa and tAmasa. The mahat-tattva is situated within the heart, or citta, and the predominating Deity of the mahat-tattva is Lord VAsudeva (BhAg. 3.26.21). The mahat-tattva is transformed into three divisions:

(1) vaikArika, egotism in goodness (sAttvika-ahaGkAra), from which the eleventh sense organ, the mind, is manifested and whose predominating Deity is Aniruddha (BhAg. 3.26.27–28);

(2) taijasa, or egotism in passion (rAjasa-ahaGkAra), from which the senses and intelligence are manifested and whose predominating Deity is Lord Pradyumna (BhAg. 3.26.29–31);

and (3) tAmasa, or egotism in ignorance, from which sound vibration (zabda-tanmAtra) expands. From sound vibration, the sky (AkAza) is manifested, and then the senses, beginning with the ear, are also manifested (BhAg. 3.26.32).

 

Of these three types of egotism, Lord SaGkarSaNa is the predominating Deity. In the philosophical discourse known as the SAGkhya-kArikA, it is stated, sAttvika ekAdazakaH pravartate vaikRtAd ahaGkArAt--bhUtAdes tan-mAtraM tAmasa-taijasAdy-ubhayam.

 

SB 11.5.36p -- The Vedic process gradually lifts the conditioned entity out of the darkness of ahaGkAra, or false identification with the gross material body, and brings him to the platform of self-realization, or ahaM brahmAsmi, "I am spirit soul. I am eternal." One has to make further progress to discover that although one is eternal, there is a superior eternal entity, who is the Lord Himself within one's own heart and within every atom in the material universe. Beyond this second phase of self-realization there is the third and final stage of perfection, which is realization of BhagavAn, or the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in His own abode.

 

[gHari]

 

Sort of, but very heavy truth couched in humour. Reverend Harry reveals more to those with ears than any of us can fathom. He has unlocked the wonder of scripture, East and West, in a few scribbles.

 

All glories to Reverend Harry!

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

I think I get it now - Prabhupada is the "Reverend Harry" - and of course the subject matter is unwanted things?

 

BDM

[gHari]

Well, no. Reverend Harry Krishna is a character from the first Muppets movie. They were lost so someone suggested they go see Reverend Harry Krishna. So they did. My son and I got a real hoot out of it back then when only he and I knew about Krsna.

 

Reverend Harry is gHari when he waxes all Christian on us. I was poking fun at myself there, yet I was praising my alter-ego tongue-in-cheek here.

 

But I was somewhat serious about that metaphor of Adam. I like it. Very powerful. Maybe even the truth about the story. Good enough for me for now anyway; words are what they are - and I'm too old for words.

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

One last word on this "Zohar":

 

"...The first attack upon the accepted authorship of the Zohar was made by Elijah Delmedigo.

 

Without expressing any opinion as to the real author of the work, he endeavored to show, in his "Bechinat ha-Dat" that it could not be attributed to Simeon ben Yohai.

 

The objections were that:

 

if the Zohar was the work of Simeon ben Yohai, it would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period;

the Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon;

were Simeon ben Yohai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done;

 

were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts ("Bechinat ha-Dat" ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).

 

These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his "Ari Nohem". A work devoted to the criticism of the Zohar was written, "Miṭpaḥat Sefarim," by Jacob Emden, who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Sabbatai Zevi movement, endeavored to show that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Muslims (who did not exist in the second century); uses the expression "esnoga", which is a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue,"; and gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period...

 

The Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose over-heated imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences. Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaism principles of faith..."

 

 

 

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

 

 

That is enough for me to form my opinion of its [lack of a] place in real Torah and Talmud discussion.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Hari Bol gHari:

 

Cool - gee - I would have never figured that out! [LOL]

 

I'll have to see that movie [not sure I haven't seen it already - would have been too long ago - I don't recall that scene] - might be good for a laugh?

 

I hope I didn't offend Prabhupada - or you!

 

"I'm too old for words"

 

You're never that old!!

 

Have a great day!!

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

"inconceivably simultaneously different from and non-different from Krishna"

 

Reply:

 

"...Everything is simultaneously one with and different from everything else. The cosmic manifestation created by the Supreme Lord by His material energy is also simultaneously different and nondifferent from Him..." [sB 3.28.31]

 

This acintya-bhedabheda-tattva is not evidence that the - gods are aspects of Krishna - they are aspects of Krishna by respresentation only - not by oneness of identity.

 

We are given this insight by Mahaprabhu - because we need to see how God is everything yet still an individual himself - without being an impersonalist.

 

As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me. [bG 9.6]

 

All states of being—be they of goodness, passion or ignorance—are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything—but I am independant. I am not under the modes of this material nature. [bG 7.12]

 

“I am situated in the material world, and the world rests in Me. But at the same time I am not situated in the material world, nor does it rest in Me in truth. [C.C., Adi 5.89]

 

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. [bG 9.5]

 

The Lord, as Supersoul, pervades all things, just as fire permeates wood, and so He appears to be of many varieties, though He is the absolute one without a second. [sB 1.2.32]

 

I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedänta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. [bG 15.15]

 

Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto He who is the associate of the members of the Yadu dynasty and who is always a problem for the nondevotees. He is the supreme enjoyer of both the material and spiritual worlds, yet He enjoys His own abode in the spiritual sky. There is no one equal to Him because His transcendental opulence is immeasurable. [sB 2.4.14]

 

For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me. [bG 6.30]

 

The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect. [bG 12.2]

 

This present form, or any transcendental form expanded by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, is equally auspicious for all the universes. Since You have manifested this eternal personal form upon whom Your devotees meditate, I therefore offer my respectful obeisances unto You. Those who are destined to be dispatched to the path of hell neglect Your personal form because of speculating on material topics. [sB 3.9.4]

 

We cannot let pantheism become our interpretation of Mahaprabhu's acintya-bhedabheda-tattva:

 

...There is an identity of this world with the Supreme Lord. This identity is accepted in a misconceived way by the impersonalists; they say that the Supreme Absolute Truth, transforming Himself into the universe, loses His separate existence. Thus they accept the world and everything in it to be the Lord. That is pantheism, wherein everything is considered to be the Lord. This is the view of the impersonalist. But those who are personal devotees of the Lord take everything to be the property of the Supreme Lord. Everything, whatever we see, is the manifestation of the Supreme Lord; therefore, everything should be engaged in the service of the Lord. This is oneness. The difference between the impersonalist and the personalist is that the impersonalist does not accept the separate existence of the Lord, but the personalist accepts the Lord; he understands that although He distributes Himself in so many ways, He has His separate personal existence...the impersonal or pantheistic view that everything is God is not a very intelligent proposal... [sB 3.21.31, purport]

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

I found this very good link to a report - written by Hugh Urban - at Ohio State University:

 

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeVII/Secrecy.htm

 

"...<big>So how, then, are we to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory aspects of the current administration, this intense public display of religiosity and this obsession with concealment? The kind of secrecy being deployed by the Bush administration is clearly very different from the kind familiar to most readers of Esoterica. It has little if anything to do with the doctrines of “correspondences” and “living nature,” with the use of spiritual “imagination” or “the experience of transmutation” described by Antoine Faivre; nor does it involve the sort of “metaphysical gnosis” and “cosmological gnosis” described by Arthur Versluis.[13] It is, however, no less relevant to our understanding of religion and secrecy, and it forces those of us who are interested in esotericism to deal seriously with other uses of religious secrecy that have more explicit political implications. The Bush administration, we will see, does use many strategies and tactics that have much in common with traditional Western esotericism – strategies of rhetorical double-coding, the art of “writing between the lines” and a skillful use of obscurity.[14] Yet the ends for which these strategies are used are quite different, having less to do with spiritual transformation than with raw political power, in Canetti’s sense</big>..."

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Forgot to mention this point from this post:

 

...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...

 

So we know that the entire 'story' is invalidated on this point:

 

<big>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

 

INDIA - Devaki and Crishna</big>

 

What is that? Krishna is spelled wrong - why? To throw attention off this point?

 

Well the fact is - Krishna's 'mother' Devaki was not a 'virgin' and - Krishna's was not exactly a virgin birth.

 

Here is how He appeared in the womb of Devaki and subsequently - in the world:

 

...<big>When Vasudeva was sustaining the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within his heart, he appeared just like the glowing sun whose shining rays are always unbearable and scorching to the common man. The form of the Lord situated in the pure unalloyed heart of Vasudeva is not different from the original form of Krsna.

 

The appearance of the form of Krsna anywhere, and specifically within the heart, is called dhama. Dhama does not only refer to Krsna's form, but His name, His form, His quality and His paraphernalia. Everything becomes manifest simultaneously.

Thus the eternal form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead with full potencies was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devaki, exactly as the setting sun's rays are transferred to the full moon rising in the east.

Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, entered the body of Devaki from the body of Vasudeva. He was beyond the conditions of the ordinary living entity. When Krsna is there, it is to be understood that all His plenary expansions, such as Narayana, and incarnations like Lord Nrsimha, Varaha, etc., are with Him, and They are not subject to the conditions of material existence. In this way, Devaki became the residence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is one without a second and the cause of all creation.

 

[...]

 

When things were adjusted like this, Lord Vishnu, who is residing within the heart of every living entity, appeared in the darkness of night as the Supreme Personality of Godhead before Devaki, who also appeared as one of the demigoddesses.

 

[...]

 

Having spoken thus in the presence of His father and mother, the Lord turned Himself into an ordinary child and remained silent.</big>... [Krishna Book]

 

<big>One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.</big> [bG 4.9]

 

This noted post - is an example of idea blending - without basis.

 

As for the rest of the plot mentioned in that post - it's a myth.

 

No offense to anyone - but I had to mention that.

 

BDM

[Guest guest]

Knowledge and transcendental knowledge are not the same thing. We gather knowledge with our senses in this plane, but transcendental knowledge appears in the heart, through transmission from one who is fully conscious in the divine plane.

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

You are correct!

 

The noted post I was commenting on wasn't 'knowledge' of any kind - just an ill-blending of ideas.

 

Part of the import therein was that Devaki-Krishna are later forms of a false idea!

 

I do wonder where he copied that story from...

 

BDM

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

As a momentous transfer of territory approaches I see this troubling news article:

 

Less than three days after he urged Palestinians to refrain from excessive celebrations over the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Friday presided over a huge celebration in Gaza City where he declared: "Today we are celebrating the liberation of Gaza and the northern West Bank; tomorrow we will celebrate the liberation of Jerusalem."

 

[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123901310024]

 

So what is that? “tomorrow we will celebrate the liberation of Jerusalem”

 

That isn’t a very good pronouncement – without doubt - there is a problem with that so-called expectation – and what to speak of any connected plans to that end.

 

How can the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority make such a statement – a statement that demonstrates that there are to be further problems with the final status of Jerusalem.

 

He knows that at the end of the day - Jerusalem cannot be anything but a capital of Israel – if it cannot be that - then - there is little hope for any lasting empathy from Israelis - for this peace process.

 

Here is more from that article:

 

Hamas and Islamic Jihad also held separate celebrations in the Gaza Strip, where leaders of the two groups announced that the fight against Israel would continue even after the "escape of the Zionist enemy" from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank. They also declared that their groups would not abandon their weapons after the disengagement and would not join the PA security forces.

 

The people who are called ‘extremists’ - <big>on both sides</big> - are going to <big>clash over this issue</big> and - the whole of the peace effort will be destroyed – as noted in my previous postings:

 

…Republican America's apparently ineffectual 'Road Map' for a Palestinian Statehood cannot be [but most likely is] some ‘little revised' facsimile of the failed and inequitable U.N. Resolution 181 - [u.N. Partition Plan - dated November 29, 1947].

 

Their Road Map states:

 

"...Parties reach final and comprehensive permanent status agreement...on the status of Jerusalem that takes into account the political and religious concerns of both sides, and protects the religious interests of Jews, Christians, and Muslims worldwide..."

 

First - the foremost religious interest of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide - should be real peace for all those living in the middle east - otherwise - what is the meaning to their ideas of a far-away Holy Land? Can pilgrimage in a terror ridden war zone be transcendental?

 

Clearly hindsight and a common sense rationality may [purposely] elude the Road Map coordinators - it will NOT suffice - neither now - nor ever - to offer each party 'a balance of land' - ‘split 50/50 with fewer broken borders'.

 

It must be clearly understood that the central 'Jerusalem issue' demands Just resolution - once and for all.

 

This disagreement on [the proper and final status of] Jerusalem cannot be ‘resolved’ in a manner that was espoused within U.N. Resolution 181.

 

As much as they would like to hope and think that [even for a limited time] an "international Jerusalem city state" - is the 'best and most fair [interim] solution' - these same people dismiss [with calculation] that this scenario would be an untenable situation.

 

We are not ever going to see any success with a so-called:

 

"...Governor of an international City of Jerusalem [who] shall have the right to...make decisions on the basis of existing rights in cases of disputes which may arise between the different religious communities or the rites of a religious community with respect to such places, buildings and sites..." [From U.N. Resolution 181]

 

Who cannot 'predict' the many ill-factional games that would quickly emerge within 'this' scenario - of course - a "dispute" of "sites" is a very predictable event - as are its consequential dangers and potentially [irrepressibly] violent outcomes!

 

We must face the reality that part of the 'Justice' here 'naturally demands' that Jerusalem is going to have be again a fully Israeli City.

 

This city is the Hebrew 'Spiritual Center' - or 'tether'.

 

Indeed Muslims - in particular - can see 'why' it is thus important to Jews - through a comparison to their own 'Spiritual Center' - 'Mecca'.

 

Will this reality [of a change for Jerusalem] be - 'need fully' concluded - "honorably" and through - "Justice" - or "dishonorably" - through the so-called leaders of the World's 'singular' Superpower [with their evangelical machinators] - cultivating a future 'need less' "Violence and Urban War"?

 

The only course to see success in this connection is one that presents FULL Justice to the suffering Palestinians and - then 'historic move' of the 'Dome and Alaqsa Mosque' to its new location can take place - BEFORE the building of the third Temple can begin.

 

[…]

 

Thus - if old Jerusalem is going to EVER see her new third Temple - then this Honourable "move" is the first step.

 

If it be a so-called ‘Errant’ Rocket [or terror] attack which eventually get the Temple "building process" underway - then material nature and common sense logic dictate: NO amount of Diplomacy or Political Maneuvering shall promote "Resolution" - what to speak of "Peace and Security"!

 

When the Historic move comes - Israel, Great Britain and America [the original 'partners in this partition'] should 'rightly' and "instantly" pay out the Billions of Dollars needed to move the 'Dome of the Rock' and Mosque Compound - ‘Stone by Stone’.

 

Move them onto - say 'the border of Jordan' - ‘there’ the Palestinian peoples must be - "Empowered by the World Community" [and (in real time) financed by the above mentioned three States - with 'other' international help] to create a NEW ‘State of the Art Capital City’ - THIS must be done for the Palestinians - they must now get their deserved New State.

 

A State whose "borders" must NOT be marginalized into "a few miles" or into a "city-state".

 

As noted - the foremost religious interest of Jews, Christians and Muslims worldwide - should be real peace for all those living in the middle-east - <big>otherwise - what is the meaning to their ideas of a Far-away Holy Land</big>? ….

 

[…]

 

Palestine must receive [without debt] as 'instantly' as possible - a comprehensive new "State of the Art" Capital City - and proper infrastructure - with international assistance to create full [supporting] Urban and Rural Communities - for two plus million exiles [in addition to the possibility of one to three million living within the Capital] - and there must be FULL 'Reparations' in ALL Respects...How about the city of Tel Aviv...

 

If there is to any real and lasting resolutions – this is the only way!

 

Otherwise how shall there be peace and security for either side?

 

Neither side is going to succeed in nullifying the other.

 

These point counter-point 'leaders' must soon understand - violent retaliations are not any good way of inducing reformations in each other.

 

Of course all it takes is simple good faith and sincerity within the hearts of those leaders who have the "power" - in all this

 

There can be real peace and satisfaction – without trying to kill each other.

 

There can be a resolution if both parties understand and accept these noted points – otherwise – they [and everyone else on earth] is doomed to so much more insecurity and suffering.

 

What is it going to take to bring these leaders into a proper understanding of their mutual situations?

 

Obviously their violent point and counter-point program of - attacks and retaliations - have NOT done anything - but make each other more callous and hard-hearted – so that isn’t going to do it.

 

What is it that each party needs? If each side receives its needs fairly – then that shall do it. The only ones who shall not accept that are demented warmongers – and there are a few engaged in this issue – yet they shall have no theater to perform in – if these issues are resolved.

 

There better be some serious soul-searching on both sides and soon.

 

The ineffectual Road Map to Peace – has left discussions about this issue [of the final status of Jerusalem] till the last hour.

 

The document hasn’t even broached the direction of the noted discussion on this issue of Jerusalem – no they’ve left it all till the end – when both parties are going to be charged with passion and reactivity and - not likely to agree on any mutual resolution – thus the scenario for an interjection by ‘outsiders’ to enact an ill state of affairs - as espoused 58 years ago - in U.N. Resolution 181.

 

Thus we need to see leaders like Mahmoud Abbas speaking more constructively on the final status of Jerusalem – it serves no constructive purpose to inflame the Israelis nor his own people with remarks like that noted at the beginning of this posting.

 

Is not the desire for - peace and security - their only real common denominator?

 

Here is a good estimation - <big>for both sides of the conflict</big> - from the Talmud:

 

“It is better to have ten inches to stand upon than a hundred yards to fall.” [Avoth d'Rab. Nathan, chap. 1.]

 

 

BDM