Is bible a holy book?

[krsna 3]

He's Got the Whole World in His Hands

Traditional

Written By: Unknown

Copyright Unknown

 

He's got the whole world in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands.

 

He's got my brothers and my sisters in His hands,

He's got my brothers and my sisters in His hands,

He's got my brothers and my sisters in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands.

 

He's got the sun and the rain in His hands,

He's got the moon and the stars in His hands,

He's got the wind and the clouds in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands.

 

He's got the rivers and the mountains in His hands,

He's got the oceans and the seas in His hands,

He's got you and he's got me in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands.

 

He's got everybody here in His hands,

He's got everybody there in His hands,

He's got everybody everywhere in His hands,

He's got the whole world in His hands.

 

[gHari 0]

Compared to a kirtana.

 

But as I programmed the computers for one thousand Christian churches I was able to chant nice japa all day. They thought I was a "nice Christian boy" filled "with the Holy Spirit" Rama Rama Hare Hare. We will know a tree by its fruits. Who has not seen a holy Christian? In the West, who has not seen a holy Christian?

 

Consider the fellow who could not read the Gita properly but who kept trying anyway. Lord Caitanya was very pleased with him. So siddhanta, jnana is not a requisite to please Krsna. If there is any siddhanta in the Bible, it is certainly well-hidden and meagre. It almost seems as though the Bible purposely hid everything from the common man but not from "those who have ears to hear" (nudge nudge wink wink).

 

Wouldn't God's "I AM THAT I AM" be considered knowledge relating to Krsna-tattva?

 

[gopidust 0]

But now it is pretty useless especially without a proper guru to explain things. Forget preaching to your sister.Even if you defeat her using logic and argument do you think she will become a devotee?

Adam and Eve is an allegory about how we fell from the spiritual world. The apple eaten was the forbidden enjoyment spirit seperate from service to God. But the only thing the modern Christians will accept about this story is whatever their ministers tell them, they won't listen to us.

They are meat eaters for the most part and cannot understand God. Just be friendly to your sister and that will do the most good in the long run. When you and she are older at least some affection will still be there. Don't be a bible basher then you will look no better than the Christians. A bible basher is someone who bashes you on the head with his bible and says 'you have to understand the bible in my way, as I am presenting it. Your way is wrong."

Because the book has been interpreted to the point where the meaning is lost they no longer have guru, sadhu or sastra and except for rare cases most people don't even know they are no longer following the Christ.

[anadi 0]

but my duty is to present some arguments when some moderate "Christians" say Bible is the book of truth and the only book of truth.

 

I suggest you spend the same length of time on the anti-Vaisnava sites and see what kind of stupid uninformed demonic foolish red-neck creatures create these abominations.

 

 

Now I take the side of Jiva Gosvami, who wrote the sandarbhas to protect the writings of his gurus: Sri Rupa and Sanatana.

 

Sorry that I have to repeat it. You just try to divert the discussion. This diversion is a demoniac tactic. If you want to say that the three main points in the discussion (or any other I presented), are false please prove it.

1. The fraudulent translation of the world elohim, Yahve, and Yahve-elohim, invariably with God, creating the “Christian” myth of so called monotheistic religion, and dividing religions in mono and polytheistic. More on this fraud here:

 

When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses. How do I know? Read the account. It doesn't take a scholar to read where Moses ASKS who's talking. No, Moses wasn't merely surprised at the voice…he simply didn't know what was going on.

Moses did not know this Yahveh, and had never heard of him. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared-here are the exact words-one of the most notorious falsities in the Hebrew text:

 

"And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him., anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahveh (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8.)

 

The Hebrew God for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind by the "name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression.

 

But this is a notorious lie-since the “churchianism” pretends that Moses did write the first five books of the Hebrew text, where in Genesis 2:4, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use as a mystical personage, was when Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh-the Lord." (Gen. 4:1.)

 

The personal name YAHVEH is spoken dozens of times by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as any one can read in Genesis. Every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH.

 

More exactly, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations." Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the dozens of "gods of the nations".

And this the pious translators, foisting their fraud on us, sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -the one and only true God-through the use of a tetragrammaton.

 

But yet a more malicious and evil-intentioned deception, is that the name of the Yahve was concealed by false translation for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew texts, as translated, into a semblance of harmony with the false declaration of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."

 

Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations, except in Psalm 78:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. (But they are irrelevant for this discussion because those passages were written well after the original 5 books were forged.)

 

The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a tribal god among a hundred neighbor and competitive gods to be the nameless One Lord God of the Universe. “

 

2. Second point I mentioned was the utter destruction of the ideea of transcendental initiation by its replacement with the ceremony of baptizing as the means to attain the heavens (by the way, no idea about the spiritual world).

3. The myth of the first man Adam, an utter lie, vigorously propagated everywhere.

 

I don’t think that the Lord wants all this twisting of the truth. Only people driven by material interestse, are twisting the words of the Lord given through guru-parampara.

 

If someone has something to say against the evidence I present it, please bring the evidence, but only using the tactic of diverting the discussion, followed by personal attack on the “opponent of debate” one proves that one follows a demoniac nature, more or less conscious.

 

By the way, “ followed by personal attack on the “opponent of debate”” , thank you for the advice to better chant more or more and better… but how can you chant better if you don’t follow “siddhanta balya citte na koro alas / iha hoite krsna lage sudrida manas” This is deceitfulness, as I said it before.

Remain factual.

We debate principles in a forum, not persons.

[anadi 0]

 

Prabhupada: General principle is that if you can engage anyone in Krsna consciousness, that is good. That is good. That is also said in the Bhakti-rasamrta. Yena tena prakarena manah krsne nivesayet. If your aim is to engage him in Krsna consciousness, if you do something which is not very straight, that is allowed. (laughter) Because you are doing very good to him

 

 

I've personlly seen emails from my Gurudeva sent to some Godbrothers, which entail many contradictory points regarding siddhanta, but in his books siddhanta is cristal clear.

He is also following this principle "If your aim is to engage him in Krsna consciousness, if you do something which is not very straight, that is allowed".

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Only people driven by material interestse, are twisting the words of the Lord given through guru-parampara.

 

--

 

So the Parampara is now lost? Bold claim to make.

 

Not much I can think to say.

[anadi 0]

See

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/84707/0/collapsed/5/o/1

[gHari 0]

Do you have no integrity? Presenting your cut and paste as though you know it to be true is simply laughable. Your 'Elohim' point has been addressed. Talk about cheating. This is the fraud, right here in this thread. You have become the "Kalki Avatar" Muslim fanatic who darkens our midst periodically.

 

If you can tell me what the Christian teaching is I'll eat my hat. What a poseur!

 

You should be reading about HaMsa. Instead you're a dupe for those dopes, supporting the demons.

 

If you want to bash the Bible, go somewhere where Biblical scholars can ease your mind. None of us know Hebrew or Greek. We don't pretend to know things which are beyond us.

 

You say you're protecting truth from the Christian moderates. Where? WHo? Stop serving these demons and get on with the service of your guru. Try to understand the implications of these tattvas you're always parroting. You only shame vaisnavas in this thread. Outsiders will see us as uninformed malevolent demons spreading childish wives' tales like uneducated fools. They judge the tree by the fruit. You blacken Sri Caitanya's face to the world.

 

 

[gHari 0]

We'll arrange to make the noted corrections to the Bible per your request.

 

My memory of the burning bush pastime is that when Moses said "Hi, I'm Moses. What's your name?" (Moses had spent his life in Egypt as a heathen Prince), God replied "I AM that I AM". Then he told Moses to tell his people that "I AM" had sent him from the mountain with a message. King James TEXT ... Hebrew for I AM THAT I AM

 

 

There was a big movement that one should never say the name of G-d, hence the primarily Jewish gee hyphen dee, etc. Here's a site with all kinds of conspiracies for you. Please evaluate them for me and refute them at your leisure. Please report back nicely. I value your Hebrew scholarship. You'll enjoy reading that Jesus actually means Je-Zeus - I am Zeus.

 

http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm

 

http://www.homestead.com/warriorsfortruth/whatsinaname.html

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/25/pg1/srtpages

 

 

[shambu 0]

To Love God

 

Srila Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura

[Tajpur journal, Friday, August 25, 1871]

 

It was Christ Jesus who first said "Love God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and love man as thy brother." This is an absolute truth indeed; but different men put different interpretations to this noble expression. The expressions of all great men are nice but somewhat mysterious - when understood they bring the truth nearest to heart otherwise they remain mere letters that "kill." The reason of the mystery is that men, advanced in their inward approach to the Deity, are in the habit of receiving revelations which are but mysteries to those that are behind them. The stages of progress are very much the same as the circles of spiritualism which, though not true themselves, explain a great deal about the gradual development of the soul.

We have understood some spiritualists to maintain that matter when sublimated converts itself to spirit. This theory is indeed against any inward conviction. Matter is matter, and spirit is spirit; one of them cannot form the other. Spirit is certainly of superior existence; though we cannot fully understand in our present state of material imprisonment, what relation spirit does exactly bear to matter, space and time. Metaphysics apart, we decide that the human soul rises higher and higher and can understand things of which we have no idea at present. Subject to this important rule, Christ Jesus of Nazareth received and uttered these words quoted above.

To readers who are a little above the scale of ordinary men, these expressions of Jesus teach, that man should love God with all his heart (meaning the affections of the heart perceivable in all children as opposed to hate), with all his mind (meaning the intellect which knows, as opposed to igorance of, good things), with all his soul, (meaning the principle of the human constitution which worships the Almighty and feels its own immortality) and with all its strength (meaning all active work). To the inspired, however, more things and better and sublimer meanings appear beneath these holy words of the inspired Jesus. He teaches man to love God and not to know, infer, hate or think of God. He tells us that man in his absolute state is not the intellect or the body but is the pure soul itself.

The essence of the soul is wisdom and its action is love absolute. The absolute condition of man is his absolute relation to the Deity in pure love. Love then alone is the religion of the soul and consequently of the whole man. The pupil asks here "What have I to do with the heart? - my heart loves to see the 'sun to smile', 'to eat the sweetest dishes and to see a dance'". Jesus profoundly replies "Yes, you must love God with all thy heart. Your heart now runs to other things than God, but you must, as you train a bad horse, make your feelings run to the loving God." This is one of the four principles of worship or what is known in Vaishnava literature as Shanta Rasa. Then the pupil says "My Lord, the intellect takes me elsewhere from God, i.e. it wants to take me to Positivism; please instruct me what am I to do?Yes," replies Jesus"you must love god with all your mind, i.e. when you perceive, conceive, remember, imagine and reason, you must not allow yourself to be a dry thinker but must love. Love alone can soften the dryness of the intellect, you must develop the intellect on all good and holy things by means of love of truth, spiritual beauty and harmony." This is the second phase of Vaishnava development which passes by the name of Dasya Rasa. The pupil then enquires whether the development of the affections and the intellect is quite enough for him. Then says the Lord, "You must love God with thy soul also, i.e. you must perceive yourself in spiritual communication with the Deity and receive holy revelations in your sublimest hours of worship." This is called the Sakhya Rasa of the Vaishnavas - the soul approaching the Deity in holy and fearless service.

The disciple apprehends that he will be lost in such a position and will be unable to act. Then the Saviour tells us these words, "You must love God with all thy strength or will - you are wrong to conclude that you will loose your active existence - you will get it the more. Work for God and to God, proceeding from no self interested views but from a holy free will (which is alone the strength of man) and identifying itself with pure love, will fully engross your attention." This description is of Bhakti in general. Then Jesus proceeds to tell us "You must love man as thy brother." From this is inferred the fourth phase of love which is a feeling that all men are brothers and God is their common Father. This is Vatsalya Rasa in its first stage of development.

Bhakti (love) is thus perceived in the very first development of the man in shape of heart, then in the shape of mind, then in the shape of soul and lastly in the shape of will. These shapes do not destroy each other but beautifully harmonize themselves into a pure construction of what we call the spiritual man or the Ekanta of Vaishnava Literature.

But there is another sublimer truth behind this fact which is revealed to a few that are prepared for it. We mean the spiritual conversion of the soul into a woman. It is in that sublime and lofty state that the soul can taste the sweets of an indissoluble marriage with the God of love. the fifth or the highest stage of Vaishnava development is this, which we call Madhura Rasa, and on this alone the most beautiful portion of the Vaishnava Literature so ably expatiates. This phase of human life, mysterious as it is, is not attainable by all, nay, we should say, by any but "God's own." It is so very beyond the reach of common men that the rationalists and even the ordinary theists cannot understand it, nay, they go as far as to sneer at it as something unnatural.

Oh God! Reveal Thy most valuable truths to all so that Your own may not be numbered with the fanatics and the crazed and that the whole of mankind may be admitted as "Your own."

[anadi 0]

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.)

 

From the moment that Constantine realized that his crimes could be expiated by Christian baptism, he declared himself the protector of a religion which treats criminals with such lenience. Immediately he began to show his gratitude to the Church. He donated the Lateran Palace to the Bishops of Rome. He sent his mother Helena on a journey to Jerusalem and erected several basilicas in the Holy Land. Then he turned his attention to increasing the membership of the Church. He offered freedom to all slaves who would accept the Christian faith, and to those who were not slaves he offered a white robe and twenty pieces of gold. As a result of this propaganda, twelve thousand converts were added to Christianity in the city of Rome alone. Next, he determined to increase the wealth of the Church. He gave permission to his subjects to bequeath their fortunes to the Church. Soon the rent-roll from the houses, shops and gardens attached to three basilicas brought in an annual income of $60,000. He raised the Bishops' salaries to $3,000 a year, and, in the Council of Nicea, assured the Bishops that if any of them were caught in the act of adultery the Imperial mantle would be thrown over them, so that the world at large might not learn of their offence. His next act was to issue an edict against all who refused to accept Christianity, commanding that their meeting places should be demolished or confiscated. According to his successor, the Emperor Julian,

 

Many were imprisoned and persecuted and driven into exile. Whole troops of those who were styled "heretics" were massacred. In many provinces, entire towns and villages were laid waste and utterly destroyed. (Julian: Epistol. lii.)

 

He then ordered the destruction of all writings adverse to the Christian faith. "For we would not suffer any of those things so much as to come to men's ears which tend to provoke God to wrath and offend the minds of the pious." And finally, in order to convince his subjects of his Christian piety,

Constantine caused his image to be engraven on his golden coins in the form of prayer, with his hands joined together, and looking up towards heaven. And over divers gates of his palace he was drawn praying and lifting up his hands and eyes to heaven. (Vita Constantin.)" see THEOSOPHY, Vol. 25, No. 5, March, 1937 (I don't give the link but the one that is really curious can lool for Theosophy)

 

This the triumphal march of "preaching of love" of the church of Paulus, as the representativ of Christianity, which went on for many centuries.

 

 

 

[anadi 0]

You gave some links and

in the first I've oppened it, is written:

 

"According to Jewish Orthodox tradition, the Sacred Name is not to be uttered and accordingly, the form "G-d " is used in writing or printing."

and than they give some reason for this prohibition (see the link).

 

What kind of ortodoxy is that, which pretend one should not utter the name of the Lord?

 

madhura madhuram etam mangala mangalanam

sakala nigam vali sat phalam cit svarupam

sakrit api parigitam shradaya helaya va

briguvara nara matram tarayet krishna nama

 

From all that is sweet, the sweetest is the holy name

From all that is auspicious, the most auspicious is the holy name.

the holy name is the ripened fruit of knowledge.

If one utters the holy name even once (sakrit api parigitam) wiht faith (shraddha) or indiference (helaya) he will be liberated.

 

For whatever reason this is a demoniac supposition "the Sacred Name is not to be uttered" , which is against the transcendental knowledhe, of chanting the name of the Lord all the time?

 

The matter of fact those articles don't contradict at all The fraudulent translation of the world elohim, Yahve, and Yahve-elohim, invariably with God, creating the “Christian” myth of so called monotheistic religion, and dividing religions in mono and polytheistic.

 

As for the King James translation... this is one of the most controversial translations.

The Vedas speak indirectly about Krishna, but Krishna speaks directly about himself.

Be sure, that agnostic translation "I am that I am." makes no sens. The Lord wants to introduce Himself to his devotee, and says: I am that I am? which means "now you know who am I, I am that I am. Congratulation. This is like the nature of maya: being inconlcusive.

 

PS:

Maybe you should not go on denigrating the opponent, which is a demoniac tactic, you should be factual, remaining on the subject.

I never pretended I know jewish, or arameic, and if you want to know the source of my writings, you should politely ask; for example MadavAnanda Prabhu with such an occasion asked me for the source, but anyway your intention was not to know the source, because anyway you know it... the muslim fanatics?

 

[gHari 0]

If anyone can say "I Am" it is God. He has no demands on Him; He is as He wishes to be. He is whatever He is. He has that unique independence. As He says "I am that I am".

 

Since you have accepted none of my good advice here, nor have you learned from any of the perspective I have offered, I should leave now. I am sorry I cannot help. It seems this is to be your own crocodile to wrestle, your personal goose to chase.

 

I hope to see you back soon. But then, you were never here, were you? You talk; we listen. That is our role for your purposes here.

 

[anadi 0]

 

If anyone can say "I Am" it is God. He has no demands on Him; He is as He wishes to be. He is whatever He is. He has that unique independence. As He says "I am that I am".

Krsna is the Supreme "I Am" - Unborn, the Source of All. One Beyond a Second

 

 

1. Krishna is speaking to Arjuna, Krishna is not “the firing bush” of Moses. Arjuna knew Krishna, Moses didn’t know who is speaking. When Moses is supposed to have asked God who is speaking it would be most improbable, that the Lord would start with an impersonal answer like “I am that I am” taking into account that Moses is supposed to be no impersonalist philosoph, or at least philosoph .

2. Jiva has two main functions: I-ness (personality or self identification) and mamata (possessivness) . Anyone can say I am, and according to what comes after “I am”, one can see if he one is utterly governed by ahamkara or not, or has an impersonalist conception as in aham brahmasmi.

 

 

 

I hope to see you back soon. But then, you were never here, were you? You talk; we listen. That is our role for your purposes here.

 

 

Be sure I am not talking for you, you are a senior devotee, and I can not tell you something, which could be new for you.

Are you on the level of chanting 64 rounds a day, or 48, or at least 32, or something in between? Just as a curiosity… or maybe 2x 64 rounds a day already? I won’t comment your answer in this connection.

[theist 1]

then asking someone else how many rounds they chant( which is none of your business BTW), is to ask oneself how many suddha-namas have I uttered.

 

For me the answer would be none in my entire life.

[Guest guest]

Does it really matter, how many rounds one chants the maha manthra or does it matter, how far the individual is really elevated. Spiritual elevation has no connection with how many rounds one is doing everyday, but with how far that person remain egoless and how far he or she remains humble and simple with discipline.

[Guest guest]

love is demonstrated by caring of the beloved in a steady and regular way

 

so the number is important

 

another aspect is that going back to godhead is impossible without surrendering to a pure spiritual master

 

and the spiritual master instructs us to chant at least a fixed number of mahamantra rounds

[theist 1]

its between The spiritual master, the disciple and God.

[anadi 0]

 

its between The spiritual master, the disciple and God.

 

 

 

Is it your speculation, or you can bring some evidence?

Or maybe is your spiritual master that told you that?

 

Learn the fourth Sloka from Upadeshamrita by heart!

 

[theist 1]

Certainly we should always consult those close to us who are more experienced. Where does it say anything about a rather impersonal public world wide open cyber forum?

 

Who appointed you as the grand inquisitor of others sadhana?

 

 

[anadi 0]

 

Who appointed you as the grand inquisitor of others sadhana?

 

 

 

and this a good try to denigrate, when the evidence required is missing, and there was nothig but a speculation.

 

To have some basic understanding in shuddha bhakti, one should learn Upadeshamrita, and a few more books, and when one makes Sri Upadeshamrita his heart, under the guidance of guru and vaishnava, he will follow them, and no such theistic speculations would come out, as the ones you spread here in this forum, even obsessivly repeated in the signature. My answer should always be there in my signature.

 

The fourth verse is about association which nourishes bhakti:

 

dadAti pratigRhNAti

guhyam AkhyAti pRcchati

bhuNkte bhojayate caiva

SaD-vidhaM prIti-lakSanam

 

Offering pure devotees items in accordance with their requirements,

accepting prasAdA or remnant items given by pure devotees,

revealing to devotees one's confidential realisations concerning bhajana,

inquiring from them about their confidential realisations ,

eating with great love the prasAda remnants given by devotees

and lovingly feeding them prasAda

these are the six symptoms of loving association with devotees.

 

You are opposed to bhakti, because you are opposed to guru, and you are infiltrated in bhakti, that is why you are most dangerous.

 

[anadi 0]

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.

One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding.

CC Adi 1.35 purport by Srila Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada

 

This has been said for all people at all times, not in a letter for Dinesh, who had his own problems...and needed a personal advice!... a certain circumstanacial context.

[theist 1]

Forgive me, but after several decades of dealing with such posturing, misusing the scriptures by people in a way that they might sound advanced in understanding or something, or even as a smokescreen to cover up their own internal fears over their own sensed inadequencies, I have become rather immune to it, and if anything I find it boring.

 

But thanks anyway.

[shambu 0]

Although I am completely unqualified to take part in this discussion (mostly I am just trying to be a total nuisance as you have noticed) I cannot restrain myself to make an ignorant remark. 4th Shloka of Upadesamrta is about loving exchanges between devotees, with the stress on loving. In your personal exchanges with devotees on this forum this loving aspect seems to be completely absent. In fact you show hardly any respect at all and dismiss any sincere reply as "speculation." For example, first you seem to praise somebody by telling him he is a "senior devotee" and next you show your utter disrespect by suggesting that this very same person is not chanting enough (at least a number of 35 rounds, which is ridiculous). If you feel that the only persons who are worthy of being taken serious have to chant at least half a lakh of rounds, then practically nobody will meet this requirement. By the way, I notice that you are quoting from the translation by BV Narayana Maharaja (which explains a lot...):

 

"revealing to devotees one's confidential realisations concerning bhajana"

 

Prabhupada's translation reads somewhat different, namely:

 

"revealing one's mind in confidence" (to devotees)

 

Probably you will remark that Prabhupada's translation is on a "more neophyte platform" since his devotees were "not yet so mature" when he wrote this, or something likewise. Whatever you may think or remark, I don't care at all. Personally I don't have any "confidential realisations concerning bhajana" so there is nothing to reveal to you. I am not even a devotee, really.

 

Maybe you should try to learn something from Jesus' example of pure humility. He is also guru, you know...

[shambu 0]

...did you read Bhaktivinoda's article? He says:

 

"Oh God! Reveal Thy most valuable truths to all so that Your own may not be numbered with the fanatics and the crazed and that the whole of mankind may be admitted as "Your own."

 

Thank you!