Bhakta Don Muntean

Why did you place a quote from me about guru being teacher - with this bunk? I see that you're frustrated but - do know that such a mood in you is playing more defiance than defense...

That is bogus - please do yourself a favor and download the free Vedabase and study that: http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?26500000037010 This is an old version - but - it has everything Prabhupada gave us and it's not too hard to use - with this and use of the search engine - you can see what is what and see that the above concept isn't what were taught by Prabhupada. It sounds like you've some cheaters in your midst....

Sounds great - especially that cherry halavah - how is that made?

THANK YOU! Would you like the exact list of ingredients and methods? I'll post them up sometime in the near future...

So here is a short video of me making holiday supper - of course no meat fish or eggs were used in this connection: <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtiKGxlL8kY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425">

Who is the immediate authority in the christian traditions? When people go to churches - how do they look upon the pastors? What standards are expected for the pastor? What standards do pastors expect from their congregations? If we are our own 'authority' - we may begin to take things too cheaply - thus - there is no question of authorities. In churches everywhere people are advanced on their path because they accept the authorities - if the authorities are bonafide - then people learn and grow - if they are not - then they become further lost. This is the case for all faith groups! It is up to the followers - in any group - to understand - from scriptures [*and to a lesser degree - depending on 'where' in the world we live - community standards] what sort of interactions we aught to have with these authorities - what level of authority we shall give them over our thinking process etc., we must not follow blindly. Like when we are in primary school [and our engagement choices were made for us by others] - when we were eight years old and stuck in some classroom - we may have felt subjugated and enslaved - by being forced to stay there and - the fact that the teacher made us stay - didn't make her a slave owner - perspective is the key. Later - as adults - we give others authority over us - such as employers and pastors and gurus etc., - so - it's really a matter of informed perspective. *Such as in places like Iran - where there are no 'real' community standards [due in part to a lack of intellectual diversity and - the state enforced religious and political ideologies] - due to the fact that too many of the authorities and leaders there are become so bogus - so - sincere peoples - in places like that cannot use the CS measure - in the manner which we are able to here in the west.

The issue for so many is that these gurus are not qualified - they try to pass as pure devotees and they are conditioned - just like those who have taken shelter of them. Prabhupada was a Pure devotee and - he didn't become a guru until he was a senior citizen. ...a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced... [sB 4.12.33, Purport] ...So anyone of you, you can become guru. It is not that I am an extraordinary man, an extraordinary god coming from some mysterious place. It is not that—it is very simple thing.... [Lecture, August 19, 1976] ...So whatever limited circle, you just become guru and deliver them. Deliver means deliver from the ignorance...Don’t make addition, alteration. Then you become guru. Very simple thing. If I say that “My father said, ‘This is a bell,’ ” I am correct because I have learned it from my father, authority. I may be fool, rascal. It doesn’t matter. But because I have learned it from the authority and presenting it that “This is a bell,” this is perfect. Similarly, I cannot become guru because I am imperfect. My senses are imperfect. I cannot see even what is beyond this wall, although I am very much proud of my eyes. I want to see. What you can see? Imperfect, all senses. But if some authority says that “Beyond this wall this is the..., like this,” it is all right. So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighborhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna. Then it will act... [Conversations, May 1977] How many gurus have fallen in ISKCON and even outside ISKCON? How many started out 'very nice' and then - after taking so many worldly minded disciples - became polluted as a result? I think that people should forget about initiations and just spend time in study and worship - gurus are teachers - this can be serviced through the senior devotees helping the new devotees to learn - really - temples have to become learning institutions - not hotels nor ritual centers. Sure - there are good gurus out there - i even know some [like the one murdered on Janmashtami in Manipur ] - but - we need them to focus on teaching in a broad sense - not that they are teaching only their own students and that's it [of course this goes on]. I have not taken initiation and i won't be taking initiation - everything that I'm supposed to learn from a guru - can be learned from Prabhupada's teachings - that is why he went to such efforts to produce the books and give the lectures - not that it was only for those devotees who were at that time his students - his intent is that we are all his students - that his presence shall be seen in his books - that his books would even become law books! Srila Prabhupada is the teacher and - we can get the vedabase and search and learn faster and better than on a 1 on 1 - with some guy [who may or may not be qualified] - and - who may or may not be learned himself...at least Prabhupada's books presents us with the standards by which we can judge all these things. "...So whatever limited circle, you just become guru and deliver them. Deliver means deliver from the ignorance..."

The vedic texts - when properly advanced - agree with you on this point...we must understand that a guru is a teacher and - that is all.

Yer not going to try to discuss this thread anymore?

Only if both parties are insincere can that happen - such a move by a guru is grounds to disassociate with such a guru - any sincere student would know that a guru cannot ask one to compromise the principles - especially in such a request of such 'service' - if a seeker falls for that line with some bogus guru - then - he [or she] is as much a cheater as the unqualified guru.

I agree with you - this guru worship is not a proper activity and the idea of guru as God - or as worthy of all the respect we would give to God - is a much abused concept and not approved by Prabhupada. Our relationship with God is a very personal and dynamic thing and - we know that there are - '...nine processes of devotional engagement: hearing, chanting, remembering, worshiping, serving the lotus feet of the Lord, offering prayers, carrying out the orders of the Lord, making friends with Him, and surrendering everything to Him. One can engage in all nine devotional processes, or eight, or seven, or at least in one, and that will surely make one perfect...' - so we can pick one or all of these nine and - we can please God. You should spend more time in broad study and not waste time sorting out ISKCON's cliques and all the rest. Don't think that 'oh this whole thing is bogus' and then go towards a former faith again because at some point you may doubt that again and then end up thinking that the whole God thing is too contradictory and thus bogus - no - better to understand that God is very much 'other' and religions - all of them - are our attempts to either explain this 'other' or to maintain some memory of something this 'other' has done - in any case - it is up to each of us to see that God is MORE than all these faiths and also that this 'other' can be found within all these faiths. We really have to see that there are fragments of this truth for us to find - in all the faith traditions [a treasure hunt of sorts] - we don't need to compete in this way - most especially - within our hearts - indeed - our focus is to learn about God and to love God and - no more.

In my posting here - with all the quotes - i was simply trying to show that there is a divergence in the scriptural traditions of the hebrews and that of the christians - on this issue of messiah [not to dismiss them as without basis]. Not only that - in many instances the mixed bibles - or those used by christians - the portions of the hebrew texts dealing with messiah are translated incorrectly - as can be evidenced by a comparison of these 'mixed' translations - with those found in the hebrew masoretic translations. As for the ideas advanced in the ancient hebrew texts regarding a future messianic age - some of this is presented as cryptic in nature - but - much of it isn't - of course - in the hebrew tradition there are four ways to interpret a text - 1. literal 2. allegorical 3. mystical 4. homiletical - so a text many be interpreted in any or all of those categories and it is up to us to understand that. There is great value in the Christian tradition and in faith in Jesus Christ - however - there shall be a messianic king and - it won't be fulfilled through any second coming of Jesus. The ancient hebrew texts aren't all that complicated on this messiah issue and that is seen in my posting as well.

What the hell are you talking about dear gHari? Save 'what' for Al Qaeda - are you comparing my postings - with them?

Mithras was born December 25th Mithras had 12 companions Mithras was known as the lamb, messiah and the shepherd Mithras' followers were babtized Mithras' mother was a virgin Mithras' at his birth was attended by shepherds Mithras turned water into wine Mithras died and was resurrected Mithras was worshipped on a Sunday Who is Mithras? There is a great deal of evidence that some of what we know of Jesus is really interpolated from the ancient Persian Mithra mystery cult as found in the Roman world. If we are going to believe in things - we should know all the facts - historical facts don't have to negate faith - only debate it - with that 'debate' comes greater understanding...

So you're saying that this 'early' Catechism taught by Paul 'a human' is 'doctrinal' and open to critical interpretation?

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version] The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah: Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible] There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes. Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting]. In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read: He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version] He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible] Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation? Why are these changes introduced? It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see. Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version] Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible] So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either. In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"!

First - the Psalms 22.17 quote is one that we went over already: Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]: So in the King James bible it reads this way: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death! So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done? The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet]. That is a fact and you cannot refute it. As for quotes about messiah being Jesus - i wasn't looking for them from the 'new' testement - but rather - in the 'old' testement. You cannot find them in the [so-called] 'old' testement because - they don't really exist. As for the Zechariah 12.10 quote - that has nothing to do with Jesus and where is your evidence that it does? That misrepresented Psalms 22.16 quote? As for 'when' messiah would be born - I already went over that point in the posting: But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2] In that quote we see that the messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness. It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles. In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'. We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is he talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jursalem] or - both? The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' indentifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem. So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both? We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surronding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'. So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel? It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event. Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or seperated from the renewed State. We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event: Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9] After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17: ...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem. So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflications] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State. Please read again this noted posting - with an open mind - you shall see the facts...

You cannot prove me wrong quote by quote? You best go through them quotes because the facts are the facts and Jesus never said he was the messiah - people assume he said this but he didn't because he isn't. There is no prophecy that messiah would be crucified - if you think there was - then what are the quotes... What about these facts: One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]: So in the King James bible it reads this way: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death! So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done? The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as 'they pierced my hands and my feet']. Jesus said many things that are not well understood - of course Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God but - he is NOT the messiah.

If you're going to devote yourself to this path - then - you aught to have proper understanding of Jesus and - that includes understanding that he wasn't the predicted messiah - the facts on this are clear - i was wondering about your thoughts on this. The fact is - Jesus cannot be the messiah predicted yet to come - within the Hebrew scriptures. If he were - the world would not be in this mess - he would not have to so-called 'come again' - there are NO texts in the hebrew holy books that speak of two comings to complete the mission - [i know all that about the suffering servant verses and it ain't about Jesus and this issue] - also some major texts in the 'christian' bible are translated wrong. One is in Psalms 22.17 [text 16 in your bible]: So in the King James bible it reads this way: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. However - in the Hebrew Bible it reads this way: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me;like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. So in the KJ version it is changed to try to draw a connection to Jesus and the Crucifixion by which he was murdered by the Roman State - however - the imprtant words were changed to support a nonexistent connection of this verse to Jesus and his death! So the original hebrew word-phrase "like a lion" is rendered into "they pierced my hands and my feet" - how was that done? The hebrew word-phrase "KeAri" [like a lion] was changed to "Kari" [which means 'he gouged me' - rendered into the english as they pierced my hands and my feet]. That is a fact. Another text that is oft misquoted to support the Crucifixion/messiah theory is Zechariah 13.6 which reads [in the hebrew Bible] like this: And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds between thy hands?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' This text has nothing to do with Jesus nor the messiah! It has to do with false prophets of the line of the ancient Baal religion. These texts [Zechariah 3-6] in context may be a warning to false prophets - with the advent of/during the messianic age. Literally "wounds between your hands." The false prophets like the prophet of Baal [i kings 18.28: And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with swords and lances, till the blood gushed out upon them] - apparently inflicted wounds on themselves - to defend against the accusation of being a false prophet - the idea was that a man would deny having inflicted wounds on himself - instead saying that he received them at home - "in the house of my dear ones." So on the face of it when one takes the mistranslated Psalms 22.16 text and misapplies it with this Zecharaiah 13.6 quote - it may look like there is a seeming pattern which speaks of the murder of messiah - by Crucifixion - when in fact it doesn't in the least. There is much much more to it than that! So let's start there. Can you find me 'old testement' quotes that teach 'original sin' and some [and not Isaiah's 'suffering servant' descriptions] that say anything about messiah having to come once die by Crucifixion for everyone's sins and come again 2000+ years later to complete the mission? Since i bring up the Isaiah quotes let's look at this: Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. [isaiah 53.10, King James version] The same text from the Hebrew Bible reads quite differntly and enters an interesting point about the messiah: Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: [isaiah 53.10, Hebrew Bible] There is a significant difference contrasted in - to bruise him - and - to crush him by disease - obvious changes. Also - when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin - contrasted to - to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution - this change goes to the heart of the false theory of original sin and false theory of messiah being a sacrifice for sin [enough edits that's another posting]. In text 3 of chapter 53 of Isaiah we read: He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, King James version] He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [isaiah 53.3, Hebrew Bible] Can you see all these bogus changes there within the King James translation? Why are these changes introduced? It is that there was no reference to Jesus being a man of pains, and acquainted with disease - so instead - they changed it to - a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief - do keep in mind the changes to the later verse [10] - where it should read - it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease - however - it reads like this in the King James - it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief - so these are important disparities which all can see. Messiah shall be someone who is diseased and - Jesus wasn't recorded in the gospels as being diseased - he is recorded as having cured them - of course - we can see in these texts what disease it may be - a clue: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, King James version] Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. [isaiah 53.4, Hebrew Bible] So "griefs" and "diseases" are two distinct states - and they aren't mutually exclusive states either. In that text the change to "griefs" from "diseases" - is carried through but - one part remains the same - we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted - what these words - stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted- are traditionally speaking of - is skin disease - like leprosy etc., something quite different from "griefs" or "sorrows"! So of course - another part should be explained in context to this - in text 5 we read: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. [isaiah 53.5, King James Version] Whereas in the original it really reads: But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. [isaiah 53.5, Hebrew Bible] Just see these changes all noted in red - "was wounded" [not killed] and - "for" is different from "because of" - this text does not support the false theory that messiah shall 'have' to die for anyone's sins [how the sacrificial theory relates to the messianic age is another discussion] - what to speak sins brought about by the non-biblical original sin theory. In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven away, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a mighty nation; and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from thenceforth even for ever. [Micah 4.6-7] Of course the messiah that is expected - shall not be seen through any second advent of Jesus - because Jesus isn't the prophetically expected messiah - the 'why not' part of that - is a whole other discussion . So it should be noted that the expected messiah [a complex subject matter] - is a human being - not God - not an incarnation [partial or otherwise] he isn't a demigod - he isn't a 'supernatural' nor divine being at all. - though he is 'different' - in that he has a 'general soul' or - a 'slightly universal' soul. He doesn't have magic powers. Like in the days of old - God shall work the wonders - during the messianic age. So what are a few points about this - in the Prophetic tradition. 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. For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. [Micah 4.4-5] In that quote we see that the messianic age - shall be multi-faith. But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days. Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel. [Micah 5.1-2] In that quote we see that the messiah's maternal roots could be traced to this place [Beth-lehem]. To say 'which art little to be among the thousands of Judah' indicates that this was an obscure place - not a place of greatness. It is a misnomer that he is to be born in Beth-lehem - clearly the texts confirm he is born among the exiles. In saying 'out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days' confirms that he has been reincarnating toward this point for a long time - 'whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days'. We also see that Beth-lehem shall not be a part of a State of Israel 'until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth' or - he is born - the text says 'Therefore will He give them up' - so is he talking about Beth-lehem - the Hebrew people in exile [and thus Jursalem] or - both? The full point is 'Therefore will He give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth; then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - so 'them' indentifies - both those in exile and - Beth-lehem. So they 'shall return' to where - to an already renewed and infant State or - to just a geographical location or - both? We must consider that were it not for Jesus and the Faith surronding him - Beth-lehem would certainly have become a nearly deserted and forgotten place [by the time messiah is born somewhere in the exile] and - for Hebrews it [was] is an 'obscure place' a place of 'no mention'. So we have to then ask - when did Beth-lehem again become part of a State of Israel? It was on June 05, 1967 - so 'He [will] give them up, until the time that she who travaileth hath brought forth and - that then should indicate that - he must have to be born just prior to that event. Consider 'He [will] give them up until the time that she who is to give birth has given birth' - the word 'until' is important - so they are no longer 'given up' right after he is born and - if the messiah is to [alone] accomplish all this - how would he do so - as an infant child? So the use of 'until' means that as soon as he is born - no more position of being 'given up' or seperated from the renewed State. We can also add that the formal reclamation of all of Jerusalem could/would also coincide with this noted event: Now why dost thou cry out aloud? Is there no King in thee, is thy Counsellor perished, that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman in travail? [Micah 4.9] After that - there is this description in Zechariah 1.14-17: ...so the angel that spoke with me said unto me: 'Proclaim thou, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. Therefore thus saith the LORD: I return to Jerusalem with compassions: My house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem. Again, proclaim, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity; and the LORD shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose Jerusalem. So that part - 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.' - that means that God is angry at the nations of the world for it's treatment of His exiled because He was 'but a little displeased' and yet the nations after the exile were to have 'helped for evil' [or helped forward the afflications] and they were 'at ease' with doing so - thus God says 'I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy' - so when we see fruition of the Micah 5.1-2 events we see that God permits all of Jerusalem to be again under an Israeli State. The State of Israel was first reclaimed after WWII - after the well known last general pogrom [directly under the Nazis and other's indirectly] came to an end - as noted in that quote God thinks that the world could have done more to prevent so much loss and instead they were 'at ease' with the Nazis - for too long - and God sanctioned this renewal - but - with this renewed State - there was a line as it were through [dividing] Jerusalem - until 1967. It should be mentioned that many propagandists have taken Zechariah 14.2 - 'For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.' - to mean that there shall be a future war there and 'the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city' - but this not so - as that was fulfilled in 30 C.E. - with the Exile - it should be noted that Muslim rulers later allowed the reestablishment of a Jewish community in Jerusalem thus 'the residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' means that even after the exile the people were being enabled by God - for a return to a former status as a State or - the end of the Exile! In text 3-4 we read that sometime after the exile comes "The Day of the Lord" - we note this point in texts three and four: Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fighteth in the day of battle. And His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleft in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, so that there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. So God indeed left mercy and an open door through this 'residue of the people [that] shall not be cut off from the city' - so that means that at some point [after the 30 C.E. exile] - the residue of the exile again comes to Jerusalem. Additionally - if the world ends up in a sorry state over this point - there may well come this 'vist' - that produces a mountain dividing earthquake - so - in text 7 we read - And there shall be one day which shall be known as the LORD'S, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. - of course we 'everyone' have choices - that impact everything. So to the point again - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is a State for him and his family and 'the children of Israel' to return to. So yes these are my humble interpretations but - it could well be that he is already here - what aspects of the future of the State of Israel [and the world] are to be impacted by his appearance - is another discussion. One thing is sure - whenever it is that he is born - there must have been a State of Israel - already in existence and intended by God [with a securing of Beth-lehem and [all of] Jerusalem with the timing of his birth] - before the time of his birth - as noted by 'then the residue of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel' - it means that there is already a State for him and 'the residue of his family' and 'the children of Israel' to return to. We can see within this last quote [and through the other's so far] that there is a clear allusion to an exisiting Jerusalem and State - to the seeming surprise of God [and the remant of the people who later begin to return] some time before messiah is born - further - we've seen that God is to show-up in anger - which is noted as being - directed toward the nations - for their helping forward the afflictions of His exiled - when He was 'only a little displeased' - so - at the end of the last and worst pogrom [nazi] God indeed 'showed up' to reclaim Jerusalem and - as expected and 'planned' - He was 'surprised' to see some of His exiled - already there and - because He was sore displeased with the nations - for their 'at ease' adventures in the continual pogroms - He was pleased with finding some remant of His exiled there and He thus began the process - for messiah to be born and - coinciding it with the removal of the dividing-line through Jerusalem: And the word of the LORD of hosts came, saying: 'Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great fury. Thus saith the LORD: I return unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and Jerusalem shall be called The city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts The holy mountain. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: There shall yet old men and old women sit in the broad places of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age. And the broad places of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the broad places thereof. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in Mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts. [Zechariah 8.1-6] So later - when the House of The Lord is reestablished by the Lord [and ONLY by the direct efforts of messiah not just the State itself can do this - and it musn't be through violence] - we note this point: Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: 'Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good; so will we render for bullocks the offering of our lips. [Hosea 14.3] One sad part of this is that messsiah's appearance shall be marked with spurious claims by others - that he is the anti-christ/al-dajjal. [note this is composed of two other postings i've written - it is good for this post 'as is' - thank you!]

With his father's help he found a good teacher...

So where is this photo? Let's see if it's genuine.... P.S.: 19 hours later and - no photo? Not even a comment from Suchandra on the picture - a picture which rings true - rather than than his lame pictures...

That's not even clever - I rather like this one - which I put together:

Well you're not interpreting correctly - you're correct that we [should want to] serve the servant of the servant - that is one mood - but - don't forget God's words: 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 of course let's look at this - what does He say about gurus: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth. [bG 4.34] So from that quote in BG 4.34 it is clear that you're wrong in your guru worship...'render service' is not worship. To 'Inquire from him submissively' is not the same 'surrender' that you speak of - a guru is a TEACHER and that is clear from this verse - from God. Everything I know was learned from reading Prabhupada's vani and - a good book is better than a bad guru - right? ...The bhakti process, as performed under the regulative principles of vaidhi-bhakti, or devotional service following the prescribed rules and regulations, is defined by the revealed scriptures and confirmed by great acaryas. This practice can help the neophyte devotee to rise to the stage of raga-bhakti, in which the Lord responds from within as the caitya-guru, or the spiritual master as Superconsciousness. All transcendentalists other than devotees make no distinction between the individual soul and the Supersoul because they miscalculate the Superconsciousness and the individual consciousness to be one and the same. Such miscalculation by the nondevotees makes them unfit to receive any direction from within, and therefore they are bereft of the direct cooperation of the Lord. After many, many births, when such a nondualist comes to sense that the Lord is worshipable and that the devotee is simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, then only can he surrender unto the Lord, Vasudeva... [sB 3.5.4, purport] ...The Supreme Godhead in His Paramatma feature is present in everyone’s heart, and He is always trying to induce the individual soul to surrender unto Him and to engage in devotional service; therefore He is the original spiritual master. He manifests Himself as spiritual master both internally and externally to help the conditioned soul both ways... [sB 4.21.36, purport] Without a doubt - for one who wants a vedic education in the science of bhakti it is the the EXTENSIVE writings lectures and conversations - all of which are on a searchable database - of Srila Prabupada which remain the best and most accessible source of instruction: ...No one should try to squeeze out his own meaning by imperfect mundane knowledge. The guru, or the bona fide spiritual master, is competent to teach the disciple in the right path with reference to the context of all authentic Vedic literature. He does not attempt to juggle words to bewilder the student. The bona fide spiritual master, by his personal activities, teaches the disciple the principles of devotional service. Without personal service, one would go on speculating like the impersonalists and dry speculators life after life and would be unable to reach the final conclusion. By following the instructions of the bona fide spiritual master in conjunction with the principles of revealed scriptures, the student will rise to the plane of complete knowledge, which will be exhibited by development of detachment from the world of sense gratification... [sB 2.9.37, purport]

So maybe those last two pictures should be deleted too...

You don't have to surrender to anyone but God as an absolute power sure there has been abuse of this in ISKCON but - you're not being fair in that every faith has this aspect - including the christian faith - in fact - many evangelical 'leaders' keep their 'flock' on a very short leash. You're generalizing and you're being unfair...