anadi

Apropo logic 1. you said "Consulting guru is done every time we read a Prabhupada purport." which is a ritvic, "prabhupadanuga" doctrine, not supported in our sampradaya or caru sampradaya at large, and I cosider it as previously deliniated demonic in nature, being agaist the life of bhakti which is guru devatatma, the deva and the atma of the disciple 2. you stress that official initiation is not always needed to belong the the disciplic succession. Have a look again at the meaning of disciplic succession: The guru's spiritual mood of service THE INTERNAL MOOD OF SERVICE to Sri Radhika and Krsna is conveyed to the disciple through the medium of MANTRA (yo mantra sa guruh sAkSat yo guru sa harih svayam ) ." The internal mood of service is transcendental, why? Because bhakti is a function of the svarupa shakti, not of the material senses. And to convey the transcendental (bhakti) you need the transcendental carrier which is the transcendental sound MANTRA, which can be vibrated by the transcendental person. Everything is given in seed from within the mantra. In normal case if one does not receive the transcendental seed of bhakti seva vasana, the desire to serve the divine couple (as in our gaudya vaisnava line), how can one make his devotional creeper (bhakti lata) grow? As we see dikSa is not only formality, when dikSa is performed by the transcendental guru personally. Why personally? Because guru is the manifestation of Sri Hari. “Guru is not an ordinary person. Guru is transcendental". No conditioned person can give the transcendental mantras, just because one acts in the name of a realized person, as “HarikeS Svami” used to say “I give you sannyasa in the name of Srila Prabhaupada”. What is this? This is cheating, kuti-nati (deceitful behaviour). The transcendental mantras can be uttered only by the tattva darSi, the persons that realized the Absolut Truth. The transcendental mantras can be received only from the mouth of the pure devotees, by their very presence. Who is your guru, who is your param guru, who is your param param guru? Are you realy linked with the parampara? If your guru is a pure devotee, than your are linked; he should have been qualified to give you the mantras, he should be the medium that link you with your param guru, with your param param guru up to Mahaprabhu, Radha and KRSNa. The ritvik system is against parampara, against Sriman Mahaprabhu and against bhakti. This is siddhanta, and everybody can apply it to persons or religious systems he wants to, taken into consideration the unavoidable conflicts that might ensue. Some Christians proposed that I should be burnt , because they think this is against Jesus Christ, and somebody else said that I am an offender of Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami. But without real guru and real disciple bhakti would die. This pair of real guru and real disciple are the only chance for us to come to bhakti.

"One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord." What about this siddhantic statement which is in line with the Rupa and Jiva Gosvami?

Thank you for your critics. I really appreciate your lovingly denigrating anadi. I'll take the blue out of the signature, because is so disturbing for you. can you give evidence for this sentence: "and there is no such thing as guru tattwa without a bonafide disciple." Srila Jiva Gosvami says in Bhakti Sandarbha. that there are two kinds of guru SarAga – with material attachments – their influence is not enduring NirAga – without material attachments . Both are gurus. So there is no harm if someone has a guru with material attachements. According one's qualification, one gets the association one is prepared for. But if that guru is pretending to be that what he is not, and tries to manipulate and restrict his advanced disciples to get a more elevated association, than he must be entirely given up. Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada says "One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach its destination. It is imperative, therefore, that one accept a spiritual master if he at all desires to gain the favor of the Lord. The service of the spiritual master is essential. If there is no chance to serve the spiritual master directly, a devotee should serve him by remembering his instructions. There is no difference between the spiritual master’s instructions and the spiritual master himself. In his absence, therefore, his words of direction should be the pride of the disciple. If one thinks that he is above consulting anyone else, including a spiritual master, he is at once an offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. Such an offender can never go back to Godhead. It is imperative that a serious person accept a bona fide spiritual master in terms of the SAstric injunctions. Sri Jiva GosvAmI advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding. CC Adi 1.35 purport

According Srila Jiva Gosvami guru has three different functions. But still many consider that guru has only one function: Sravan guru, and they make a tremendous propaganda in this direction, disregarding our tattva acarya, Srila Jiva Gosvami. By the mercy of my Gurudeva, and all guru parampara, I will try to speak about the second function of guru: dikSa, as this subject has been delineated through rupAnuga guru varaga and Sastra. First, what is dikSa? divyam jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saNKzayam tasmat dikzeti sA proktA diSikais tatttva kovidaiH That which bestow transcendental knowledge -divyam jJAnaM yato dadyAt and destroys sins, the seed of sins and destroys avidyA to the root is called dikSa by tattva learned authourities. What says Srila RaghunAtha dAsa GosvAmi in his first Sloka on manaH SikzA gurau goSThe goSTAlayizu sujane bhUsura-gaNe sva-mantre Sri namni vraja-nava-yuva-dvandva-Sarane sadA dambhaM hitvA kuru ratim apUrvAm atitarA- maye svAntar bhrAtaS caTubhir abhiyAce dhrita-padaH aye bhratah - O brother; svantah - mind; dhrta –padah holding your feet; abhiyace I am praying; catubhih - with sweet words; sada - always; hitvtA- giving up; dambham- pride; atitaram- exceedingly; kuru - adopt; apurvam- unprecedented; ratim- spiritual attachment; gurau- in Sri. Gurudeva; gosthe- in Vraja-dhama; gostalayisu - in the Vraja-dhama; sujane - in the Vaisnavas; bh.sura-gaNe - in the brAhmaNas; sva-mantre- in one’s own dikSA-mantras; Sri-nAmni- in Sri harinAma; vraja-nava-yuva-dvandva-SaraNe (and) in the shelter of the new youthful couple of Vraja. So, one should also pray with sweet words to his mind to adopt unprecedented and sublime spiritual attachment for the diksa mantras he received from his gurudeva. Would that be not so important, than Srila RaghunAtha dAsa GosvAmi would have not mention it quite in the beginning of His Teachings to the mind.

Previous post by anadi. Toxic nectar. In the begining is bitter as pita, but in the end is sweet as madhu.

The one who thinks that bhakti is reading books he deceives himseslf and others, if he emphasize that this is bhakti, he is only a cheater. Of course, everybody has attained a certain level of shraddha. But one should see where is he, at all, has he really understood the pure devotee? did he started bhakti? just quoting some conversations and some letters, but not paying attention to basic siddhanta? gurpadasrayas tasmat krsna diksadi siksanam In bhakti RasAmRta Sindhu Srila Rupa Gosvami defining the angas of bhakti, starts with Sri guru padaSraya, which means that first one should go to guru and take shelter of His lotus feet. What is the meaning of that? Jiva Gosvami says: yo mantra sa guruh sAkSat yo guru sa harih svayam gurur yasya bhavet tuStas tasya tuSto harih svayam By the process of initiation (dikSa), the mantras (the transcendental sounds) given are the Self of the guru. What is the meaning? yo mantra sa guruh sAkSat, means that the transcendental mood of the guru is given through the mantra (the transcendental sound) yo guru sa harih svayam and the guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. How? Srila KRSNa dasa Kaviraja Gosvami says guru KRSNa rupa hana Sastrera pramane guru rupe KRSNa kRpa karena bhakta gane guru (the one that gives initiation - dikSa) is directly the outward form of KRSNa's form (KRSNa rupa) and and guru is the form that KRSNa's mercy (KRSNa kRpa) takes for the bhakta. And further Srila KRSNa dasa Kaviraja Gosvami says SikzA guruke ta' jani KRSNera svarupa Sikza guru is the internal form of KRSNa (KRSNera svarupa) And as there is no difference between KRSNa rupa and KRSNa svarupa, in the same way one should not see any difference beween dikSa and Sikza guru. gurpadasrayas tasmat krsna diksadi siksanam You don't understand at least through the head, what is guru-vani, this is transcendental sound, that is why one should practice the aural reception from the lips of bhavuka (that one in who's citta bhava has arisen), rasika (the one who tastes bhakti rasa) bhakta. Bhakti is not an intellectual proscess.

What could Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami say? that they have no chance to get the real thing? yena tena prakarena manah krsne nivesayet... "An acarya should devise a means by which people may somehow or other come to Krsna consciousness." (Brs.1.2.4) There is no piece of evidence in the books Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami wrote, for sustaining your ritvik. Your speculations are based of some of his discussions and letters wrote to his disciple, who did not read his books, and he spoke to them folowind the principle: yena tena prakarena manah krsne nivesayet... "An acarya should devise a means by which people may somehow or other come to Krsna consciousness." (Brs.1.2.4) In describing the different types of devotees, Srila Rupa Gosvami advises us in Sri UpadeSamRta how should we behave in our relations with them. There we can find some characteristics of the madyam devotee: krsneti yasya giri taM manasAdriyeta dIKSAsti cet praNatibhiS ca bhajantam iSam SUSRuAayA bhajana-vijNam ananyam anya- NindAdi Sunya-hRdam Ipsita-saNga-labdhyA Adriyeta one should respect; manas. within the mind; Tam that person (a neophyte devotee); yasya giri in whose speech; iti thus (appears); kRSNa one name of KRSNa; praNatibhiH one should offer praNAma; ca also; bhajantam - to an intermediate devotee who, (being endowed with the correct understanding of reality and illusion, performs bhajana in accordance with the VaiSNava conventions); Isam -to his Istadeva; cet if; asti -he has; dikSA -accepted initiation from a qualified guru; SuSRuSayA one should do all types of service bhajana vijNam to a self-realised, expert mahA-bhAgavata (VaiSNava who performs bhajana of Sri RAdhA-KRSNa's eightfold daily pastimes by rendering service mentally; ananyam who is one pointed, exclusive devotee of Sri KRSNa; anya nindAdi Sunya hRdam and whose heart is free from faults (due to his undeviating absorption in KRSNa), labdhyA having obtained; Ipsita saNga the association for which one hankers (the association of a topmost devotee whose heart is established in the particular mood of service to Sri RAdhA-KRSNa for which one aspires and who is affectionately disposed towards oneself).

VrajanAtha: Sri KRSNa, being established in each of His Saktis, manifests His svarUpa according to the nature of that Sakti. When He is situated in the cit-svarUpa , He manifests His svarUpa as Sri KRSNa and also as NArAyaNa, the Lord of Paravyoma; when He is situated in the jIva-Sakti , He manifests His svarUpa as His vilAsa-mUrti of Vraja, Baladeva; and being established in the mAyA Sakti , He manifests the three ViSNu forms: KAraNodakaSAyi, KSirodakasayi and GarbhodakaSAyi. In His KRSNa form in Vraja , He manifests all the spiritual affairs to the superlative degree. In His Baladeva svarUpa as Seza-tattva, He manifests nitya-mukta-pArSada-jivas , eternally liberated associates, who render eight types of service to KRSNa Sezitattva- svarUpa, the origin of Seza-tattva. Again, as Seza-rUpa SaNkarSaNa in Paravyoma, He manifests eight types of servants to render eight kinds of services as eternally liberated associates of Sezi-rUpa NArAyaNa . MahA-ViSNu, who is an avatara of SankarSaNa, situates Himself in the jIva-Sakti, and in His ParamAtmA svarUpa, He manifests the jIvas who have the potential to be involved in the material world. These jivas are susceptible to the influence of mAyA, and unless they attain the shelter of the hlAdini-Sakti of the cit-Sakti by BhagavAn’s mercy, the possibility of their being defeated by mAyA remains. The countless conditioned jivas who have been conquered by mAyA are subordinate to the three modes of material nature. Bearing all this in mind, the siddhAnta is that it is only the jiva-Sakti, and not the cit-Sakti, that manifests the jivas. Jaiva Dharma Prameya Jiva Tattva Ch 15

Back to other frauds in translation which are even the corner stone of the pavelinic churchianism, known as (dogmatic ortodox) christianity. "Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-type". So where does 'begotten' come from? Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of a fraud in translation. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'. "Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bar-dalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God" (which is the quality of sat-guru). There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically (material body) divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such." The idea of Son of God means that God made Jesus in Maria's womb, and Jesus is the only son of God, not coresponding the general idea that we are all sons of God, because we are all spiritual souls. The churchianic idea of Son of God is based on the material bodily conception of being. "Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being". source "...and the truth shall set you free" by David Icke

Yes, this is the clue, but theist, wants to stress this exception, by make it visible in every of his post, as it would be a rule. Which is certainly not. This is his deceitfulness, and ritvik atitude, in a disguised mode. (Wich means, apparently he agreads that one has to accept a guru, or better said the guru must accept you, but he says no, no there is no need, and this I'll stress it in all my post. This makes him a ritvik, a concealed one, one who is against the root cause of the janma bhakti and the mukya anga to attain krishna prema, expressed in his famous ritvik sentence: ²Consulting guru is done every time we read a Prabhupada purport." .

Everybody according his capacity, should follow the order of gurudeva: Learn the slokas, read the books, increase your number of rounds, worship the Deity, and chant your gayatri mantras as I taught you, come and hear hari-katha from me, whenever you can, but better you come nach Vrindavan in kartika month, so that you get strength in your bhakti. Translate my books, distribute my books and preach, because when you do this, you preach first to yourself. He also said that I should never start by teaching others. First I should teach myself, that means to follow saranagati first, and upadesamrita, so I had to learn these first and make them my daily bread. Following his orders means serving him. I am not a sat shisya, but since I met Gurudeva, my life has changed substantially. At least some attachment for chanting more every day is the good sign ...I don't say more. I cannot afford to waste so much time in this ...

...and at the same time different. Book Bhagavata--Impersonal aspect Person Bhagavata--Personal aspect "If by approaching Book Bhagavata you don't approach Person Bhagavata then you are being a Mayavadi." A Mayavadi is essentialy a demoniac person, even if he gets all good qualities of sattva guna.

How did you know, were you too on the side of ritvik prabhupadanuga forum of padda, that banned me even from the moment I started to post something on guru-tattva? If you worry for Gurudeva's reputation, which emphsizes that guru is the backbone of bhakti, how do you praise, the ones that say in a croocked way: What need of guru, "Consulting guru is done every time we read a Prabhupada purport" Please tell me who you talk to, so we can present both this case. You think I was chastised previously for behaving like this , which I think is a little bit more than twisted. Except the case of "Gopal the liar", I never behave like this. And now is the case of theist the disguised ritvik. Previously the sugestion to leave this forum was for other reasons, which went more in the babaji direction. Please forgive my offenses Major Tom

I think there is another major difference. 1.Does theist has a diksa guru and who is his Siksa guru? 2.Does theist know what is the difference between siksa guru and sravana guru, when he pretends like Ekalvia pretended he would be the disciple of Drona, because he worshiped his murti? Srila Bhaktivedanta Madhava Maharaja is the personal servitor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja for about more than 30 years. Such a sad sishya as Madhava Maharaja is nothing but a sad guru. And still he is not alone. Gurudeva imbibed is mood and knowldge in many other special soul, so that we, the others can come from anishtata bhakti to nista, ruci asakti bhava. We will react as he taught us: krishna-bhakti-janma-mula haya sadhu-sanga krishna-prema janme, tenho punah mukhya anga CC( Madhya-lila 22.83) Sadhu-sanga is the root cause of krishna-bhakti. The life of krshna-prema is this sadhu sanga and nothing else but sadhu-sanga is the principal limb of attaining it. When I say that the personification of the death of bhakti is theist, one may start to speculate, as theist did, that bhakti devi is transcendental, and eternal. But his speech, although in this connection not wrong, was only a deluding tactic, from the ideea that our guru parampara has alwasy stressed: there is no bhakti without the association of the saintly person, the sat guru. Someone who makes a "bhakti"-line, without taking in consideration the principle enunciated in the verse above, should know that in that line "bhakti is dead". There is no bhakti in that line, although they might talk about bhakti. The propagator of such a line is theit, and therefore he emphasizes in every post "disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially" although he pretends he would be no ritvik. At least the ritviks are not duplicious, they say directly that the books of "Srila Prabhupada" are enough (the matter of fact the same thing said theist) and the others were only concern that I am attacking theist, which means they are like him. The idea to make an institution that promise bhakti, but will never give it, because the root cause and the very life of Krishna bhakti and Krishna prema is missing, cannot be but a negative utopia, something better than a fraud? And where there is no sadhu, apasiddhanta will flourish.

It is the same old tactic, of changing the subject and trying to discredit the opponenet. But you are continuing to emphsize "your nice words", and this is deceitfulness. Just a previous example of the same tactic ,of sweet words, you applied in this thread, making some "general denigrating comments" so that we come as much as possible out of topic: "You switched from the tactic of diverting from the subject to the denigration tactic, and your atacs are more virulent. I said one should be factual. Than you change and you want to eat your hat, not because the bible as was assembled and translated and misinterpreted, might be proven a fraudulent work, but because I, "the opponent", I don't know what are the Christian teachings. I tell you, in that way so that you don't eat your hat: If you are baptised at the end of your life, and you say that you belive in Jesus, all your sins will be forgiven, and you will go in heaven, otherwise you will go for ever in hell. Ask your local priest, if this is true of false. Evindence for this here: "The emperor Constantin was told that no pagan religion offered absolution for such crimes as his. He then turned to the Christian Church, (the sect of Paulus) and was informed that Christian baptism would expiate any crime, irrespective of its magnitude. At the same time he was advised that baptism might he deferred to the day of his death without losing any of its efficacy. Thus, Eusebius relates that, When he thought that he was near his death, he confessed his sins, desiring pardon for them from God, and was baptized. So that Constantine was the first of all the Emperors to be regenerated by the new birth of baptism, and signed with the sign of the Cross. (Vita Constantin)."

Cant have a discussion among vaisnavas without hammering them into submission. Okay anadi, all glories to anadi, you have proven thayt Ch Ch was referring to you, in blue letters, as the authority we all need to consult and serve with rapt attention Thank you that you are only ridiculing me, subscribing to the demoniac teachings of ridiculing when there is no argument at hand. And you didn't answer the question "What is real love of god?" in replay to "and Ill gladly hear from devotees like theist and gHari, scholars, indeed, but most of all, devotees, who see scholarship as secondary to real love of god." What is real love of god?

This duplicity is not evident to anyone. First theist says: the Supersoul gives you what you want. If you want to be cheated, He will cheat you. Ok. But don't go on spreading your cheating. What does theist wants? He wants this guru: Srila Prabhupada. Where is this Srila Prabhupada? In his books! Really does nobody sees his cheating mentality? and his proficiency in twisting the words? Guru is not sastra. A Living Sadhu A Conversation with Sri Srimad Gour Govinda Swami Maharaja Devotee: Srila Prabhupada always emphasized that he was eternally present in his books, instructions, tapes, and letters. So when you say we should take association of a sadhu can we do that through Srila Prabhupada's books? Gour Govinda Swami: If Prabhupada says he is there, then you try to see him, associate with him, and listen from him. Do you see Prabhupada? Do you hear from Prabhupada? Is he speaking to you? Devotee: Through his books. Gour Govinda Swami: Through his books, yes. All sadhus speak through their books. Jiva Goswami, Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami, Bhaktivinode Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and Srila Prabhupada all say that they speak through books. This is not a new thing. This is our Vaisnava procedure. But you should see him. Can you see Bhaktivinode Thakur? Can you see Jiva Goswami? You may say, "Oh I have read their books; I have their association." That won't help you. You cannot understand what they have said merely by reading their books. Your consciousness is very low, so you cannot understand their words. They are very, very merciful, but you should follow the proper path. If you are intelligent you will understand how they are still here, not only in the form of their books but also they are here. You should see them. Why are you thinking so foolishly? So many books were already there, so why has Srila Prabhupada said this? You are thinking, "We need only to read books. There is no need of associating with a sadhu who is physically present. Is there any sadhu? No, there is no sadhu at all." Your motto is, "Seeing is believing." You cannot see, so you cannot believe. Because you are a conditioned soul, your vision is defective. You cannot see a sadhu. Krishna is there. Can you see Him? No, you cannot, because you are not endowed with proper vision. First develop the proper vision and then you can see Krishna. Then you can see how a sadhu is there. .... Devotee: So we have to associate with a living sadhu? Gour Govinda Swami: Definitely. There is always one there. But he is not a cheap person. Such a person is very rare. If you can get his mercy then you can see him. Otherwise, by your own effort and perception, you cannot see him. No, no, no. ... Gour Govinda Swami: Yes. The sadhu is the seer. If he showers his mercy upon you, he sees you. If you receive that merciful glance then you are very fortunate. However, you are in the category of bodily consciousness. How can you have it? Guru is the manifestation of the Supersoul, caitya-guru, in the heart. He manifests a body and appears. He knows your heart. Devotee: I don't quite understand. Gour Govinda Swami: Yes, try to understand. As I told you, just hear patiently. A new bhakta cannot understand it because it is a topic of the highest class. You are in pre-primary class, how can you understand? You are not even in the primary class. How can you understand this topic of the highest class? Just accept the bona fide authorities. That will help you. My guru-maharaja says in his purport that the beginning is purity of consciousness. First come to this beginning stage. Then gradually other things will come up. You are not in the beginning stage so how will the higher topics come up? This is a very, very subtle and very deep philosophy. Putting full faith in the sadhu you need only submissively hear — sravanam, sravanam, sravanam. In that way you can get the mercy of that sadhu. That will help you. Only one thing is required, nothing else — sravanam, sravanam, sravanam. Just hear. Serve that sadhu, please him, hear submissively, surrender yourself at his lotus feet, and submissively ask questions. Out of mercy, the sadhu will impart this tattva-jnana to you. This is the only process. Unless you get association with a living sadhu, what can you do? Will you put some question to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Prabhupada will answer you? This process is a living thing. It is always there, and it is always current. It is not that inquiry was done a certain way in the past and now things are done differently. No! It is an eternal.

My "trampling" is only demasking your demoniac mentality. Why demoniac? Because 1.you say you don't need disksa guru 2.but guru is the No.1 priciple in bhakti 3. why? <font color="blue"> Guru-CaraNa-Kamala Bhaja Mana O Mind, Just Worship the Lotus Feet of SriGuru <font color="blue"> </font color> Hindi song by Sri Srimad Bhaktivedänta NäräyäNa Mahäräja guru-carana-kamala bhaja man guru-kripä vinä nähi koi sädhana-bal, bhaja man bhaja anuksan (1) O mind, just worship the lotus feet of Gurudeva! Without Gurudeva's mercy we have no strength in our sädhana. Therefore, O mind, worship and serve him at every moment! milatä nahï aisä durlabha janama, bhramatahü caudaha bhuvana kise ko milte haî aho bhägya se, hari-bhakta ke darasan (2) Without coming to Sri Guru in this rare human birth, we are simply wandering about these fourteen planes! Oh, how fortunate we are to have come to him to get the darsana of Sri Hari's devotee! krishna-kripä ke änanda murti, dina-jana karunä-nidän bhakti bhäva prema tina prakäsata, Sri guru patita pävan (3) Sri Guru is the blissful embodiment of KRSNa's mercy and the reservoir of compassion for the destitute souls. He enlightens us in bhakti, bhäva and prema and is the saviour of the fallen! Sruti smriti aur puränana mähî, kino spasta pramän tana-mana-jivana, guru-pade arpada, Sri harinäma ratan (4) All the Srutis, smritis and Puränas describe Sri Guru's glories. Offering my body, mind and very life to the feet of Gurudeva I incessantly sing Sri harinäma! See also Guru astakam, the first song you should sing every morning.

persecution complex? No, too much propagation of falsity. And you are the plague. Look at the innocence of theist, the personification of the death of bhakti: "Consulting guru is done every time we read a Prabhupada purport." This is his understanding of 1. guru padashraya 2. guru diksha shiksha adi and he is not alone, and he knows that, that is why he says we read! No, he is not the "innocent", to whom you could preach something, he reads sastra in the company of ... others like him, and go to preach that one does not need a guru, than parampara does not mean to take diksa... . One does not go to preach untile he attains bhava... but one can assist the preaching of his guru devatatma, disksa and siksha guru and yuta! Does one know in which yuta he is? Does one have a lillte glimpse of his sambhanda? Does one chant with sambhanda? Am I trampling this "innocence" that you praise, which is only the death of bhakti?

Showing the truth about the way that so called scripture have been made, can be seen as discreditations of the impostors? No, it is a de-masking of the way such dogmas as "jesus is the only son of God", the ones that don't surrender to Jesus go for ever in hell"....etc have been made up by a sect which wants to impose their dogmas by any means: "By the fourth century it became necessary for the Church to decide which of the many Gospels then in circulation were to be accepted as authentic. The question came up in the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council. He says: Having promiscuously put all the books referred to the Council for determination under a communion table in a church, they (the Bishops) besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath. And it happened accordingly. When the Bishops returned to the Council room on the following morning, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were resting on the communion table. Their presence in the New Testament is due to the art of divination, for practicing which the Church subsequently condemned men and women as sorcerers, enchanters and witches, and burned them by the thousands. After the death of Constantine, his policy was continued by his two sons. Every indulgence was shown to the illegal behavior of the Christians, every doubt explained to the disadvantage of the pagans, and the further demolition of the pagan temples was celebrated as one of the auspicious events of their reign. Having perceived the efficacy of Christian baptism in the case of their own father, they determined to force baptism upon even the unwilling. As Gibbon says: The rites of baptism were conferred on women and children, who, for that purpose, had been torn from the arms of their friends and parents. The mouths of the communicants were held open by a wooden engine, while the consecrated bread was forced down their throats. (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) But when Constantine's nephew, Julian, came to the throne, all of this was changed. Julian was a Neoplatonist, a pupil of Aedesius, who had in turn been taught by Iamblichus. Julian was initiated at Ephesus when he was only twenty years old, and later was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries. When Julian came to power the whole Christian world was thrown into a state of perturbation. How would this Neoplatonist, this Initiate, act toward Christianity? Would he retaliate with some new and still more cruel refinement of death and torture? Julian answered these questions in a truly Christlike manner. He at once extended free and equal rights to all the inhabitants of the Empire, irrespective of their religious beliefs. He invited all those Christian Bishops who had been excommunicated and exiled on account of their unorthodox views, to return to their posts. At the same time he urged the pagan teachers who had been driven out of Alexandria by Constantine to return to their philosophical pursuits. He invited the opposing Christian factions to meet in his palace, where he advised them to give up their differences and try to live in concord. But at the same time he gave his pagan subjects permission to re-open their temples and continue their own form of worship. Because of this fair and impartial treatment of his subjects, Julian has come down in Christian history under the ignominious title of "the Apostate." The knowledge that Julian had gained in his initiations made him a menace to orthodox Christianity. He was urged to make his knowledge public so that the Christian Church could refute his statements. To this Julian replied: Were I to touch upon the initiation into the Sacred Mysteries respecting the "seven-rayed God" . . . I should say things unknown to the rabble, very unknown, but well known to the Blessed Theurgists." source: THEOSOPHY, Vol. 25, No. 5, March, 1937

This is a twisting of my words. I don't want to say this. Why do you put this in my mouth? What I say, is that the sect of Paulus after they took on power, they tried to give a background for their doctrine, which is a such twisted speculation put as saintly which a pure fraud due to expansionist and exclusivist intensions of the sect of Paulus. So they created the "Old Testament" which is a twisted and fraudulous translation of some texts of the judaic religion, by which they tried to show how Jesus was a predicted Mesia, which they tried to present as the son of God (no knowledge of jiva tattva). Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being". source "...and the truth shall set you free" by David Icke

Look at the innocence of theist, the personification of the death of bhakti: "Consulting guru is done every time <font color="blue"> we read </font color> a Prabhupada purport." This is his understanding of 1. guru padashraya 2. guru diksha shiksha adi and he is not alone, and he knows that, that is why he says we read! No, he is not the "innocent", to whom you could preach something, he reads sastra in the company of ... others like him, and go to preach that one does not need a guru, than parampara does not mean to take diksa... . One does not go to preach untile he attains bhava... but one can assist the preaching of his guru devatatma, disksa and siksha guru and yuta! Does one know in which yuta he is? Does one have a lillte glimpse of his sambhanda? Does one chant with sambhanda? Am I trampling this "innocence" that you praise, which is only the death of bhakti?

You can continue to denigrate me, I'am used to it, but I'll fight your demoniac nature with all my power. You are trying to distroy bhakti by your attitude of just asking the sastra, and pretending you understood what is written in it. You don't understand. This is not the way bhakti goes. Never. Go to guru, go to the realized soul, and than you will see how much you do understand "at least thorough the head". tad vidhi pranipatena pariprashnena sevaya upadeksyanti te jnana jnaninas tattva darshina upadeksyanti te jnana which means that the one who realized the truth, the tattva darshi, he will bring you near upadesha to the knowledge.

Who has a Soul? "In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of "nephesh hayyah" which is "the moving creature that hath life," and of "nephesh hayyah-every living creature" out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of "nephesh hayyah-the living creature" out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over "kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life," (1:30.) The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called "nephesh hayyah," literally "living soul". In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly "living creatures" (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim "breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim -- (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul". (2:7) In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life. In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were 'nephesh hayyah' or living souls. Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture's stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priestcraft. Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and "Creation's masterpiece, Man," became a "living soul." They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust. The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don't have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul. So what happened here? Forgery." source "…and the truth shall set you free" by David Icke

In the other thread you attack me, accusing me that I would show erudition, just for the show?! You miss the svarupa laksana, the intrinsec meaning of those evidences. But in this thread you praise theist and qHari for their erudition. Sorry, and this shows your bias and somehow your duplicity. Erudition in itself is worth nothing, but in the begining of bhakti one should learn many many verses, and meditate on them while chanting (mantra may upasana) so that one's intelligence (differenciating capacity) will become sharp. And through this intelligence the knot of maya, which is tight in the mind, will be cut. Evindently you see only the verses that I quote, as evidence for what I am saying, but not the verses are important, rather their authoritative opinion. And they are not so pleasing to your ears, unfortunely. If you think that I want to boast with my insignificant knowledge you are wrong. I know how knowledge looks like, when all is manifested from within, and all the slokas come on your lips from their own accord.