X-Ftn-To: Wade Humeniuk

"Wade Humeniuk" wrote:
>> I waited, and waited, and hoped that someone will react to this, but
>> noting. Oh well.
>
>I will take a shot at this. For me ahimsa is not a truth but a behaviour.

This is true; and a very positive type of behavior, too.

>And I believe it is a behaviour that more evovled beings exhibit. It arises
>naturally from awareness of other beings in the universe and identification
>with them. Yoga promotes the behaviour in a hope to bring that
>consciousness about (As it also promotes non-stealing, non-lying, ...). Act
>evolved/enlightened and you will become enlightened. Ahimsa arises from
>consciousness.

I agree.

>> Also, if you're in a peaceful country that's being invaded by the
>> Serbs, you know that your best shot at survival is to try to stop them
>> by all means possible. If you play nonviolence (as Bosnian president
>> Izetbegovic did) your people will be slaughtered on sight (see
>> Srebrenica). Those who aren't killed immediately will be brought to
>> concentration camps, where they'll be starved, tortured and/or raped,
>> and most will also be eventually killed. It is obvious that controlled
>> violence against the aggressors is the most nonviolent option
>> available. Therefore, a well armed defensive military force is the
>> best way to keep peace, if you have insane neighbours. All of that
>> stuff is practical experience since, to remind you, I'm from Croatia.
>
>And I am sure that the Serbs say the same thing. I worked with a guy who was
>Serbian.

I'm sure he would. However, the war was fought on our territory, not
theirs. Enough said.

>He said the Croats and Serbs have a feud going back 100's of years
>and they hate one another.

Actually this is not accurate. If you take a look, you will see that
the Serbs first fought the Slovenians, then Croatians, then Bosnians
and now they've finished fighting Albanians. Basically, they're in
conflict with everybody. Also, not even a shot was fired on the
Serbian territory, and half of the surrounding countries is devastated
by their heavy bombardment. The only actual attack on Serbia was done
by NATO.

> He also said the Croats were Nazi collaborators
>and sent many Serbs to the concentration camps and the Serbs wanted to get
>even.

Actually, both the Serbs and the Croat collaborated with nazis. Both
Serbs and Croatians persecuted the jews and other minorities. However,
the pro-nazi regime had a strong opposition in Croatia, and all of the
Partisan leaders, who freed the entire former Yugoslavia, were Croats,
including Tito. In Serbia, the chetnik pro-nazi regime had no
opposition whatsoever.
You know very little about history, it seems. And don't listen to the
Serbs; in Netherlands, they actually have a proverb about them, "lying
like a Serb". Enough said.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Hari Har Singh

"Hari Har Singh" wrote:
>But it is not really that difficult to read between the lines or find out
>the Meta-message and one obviously don't have to be an realized to feel the
>presence of an realized beeing or an blown up Ego. I can recomend: use your
>newsreading softwares killfile - not everything on the Usenet has to be
>read.
>Nowadays I also sometimes wonder if some "Selfs" better would have been
>un-realized?

Yes, it's best that we leave the newsgroup to you, so you can
regularly post misleading info about your cult and copy-paste sleezy
crap from somewhere.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>>Visions carry power and spiritual insight, while hallucinations carry
>>only fear and illusion.
>
>Not true, since many description of psychotic episodes include
>spiritual insight and communication with God. Temporal lobe epilepsy
>(TLE) also creates religious states full of power and meaning.

Every form of spiritual experience goes through the brain. The
connection with the soul is bi-directional. In come cases, and with
some experiences, events that take place in the cerebral
neurochemistry, such as the effects of psychotropic drugs like LSD,
even marijuana, or electric cortical stimulation, or some sorts of
brain damage or electrical activity (such as TLE) can result in some
sort of a religious/spiritual experience, which can be called genuine.
However, since this isn't accompanied with the adequate development of
all aspects of personality, such experiences have limited value.

>>>If you see Gods/angels, so be it. But be careful with the people who
>>>you teach - you may seriously f*ck up people who might already be
>>>fragile.
>
>>Your advice is worthless since you have no knowledge of the subject.
>
>I was speaking on a general level and not referring to anything you
>teach. Fragile people do get hurt in religions, especially in ones
>that require total devotion.

"Fragile" people never get the chance to become my students.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>>The explanation is simple: they are not.
>
>That's possible, but you have to admit that hearing voices does not
>imply that those voices are real. Why would seeing angels be any
>different?

Well, the fact that some people hallucinate that someone is with them
in the room, doesn't mean that there are no people who actually do
observe the presence of another person in the room. Besides, the
difference between Divine visions and hallucinations is enormous.
Visions carry power and spiritual insight, while hallucinations carry
only fear and illusion.

>>The fact, the you are unable
>>to accept that, and you reduce the world in order for it to fit your
>>limitations, is your problem, and I feel no need for sharing it with
>>you. So just keep your limitations and live in a godless world.
>
>If you see Gods/angels, so be it. But be careful with the people who
>you teach - you may seriously f*ck up people who might already be
>fragile.

Your advice is worthless since you have no knowledge of the subject.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>How come Yogananda does not realize that the visions he sees are only
>creations of his mind?

The explanation is simple: they are not. The fact, the you are unable
to accept that, and you reduce the world in order for it to fit your
limitations, is your problem, and I feel no need for sharing it with
you. So just keep your limitations and live in a godless world.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)

"Aco Momcilovic (a.k.a. Never)" wrote:
>>Ti si obicna budala koja nije u stanju razlikovati kurac od banane.
>
> :) Danijele jebem ti mater prekini vise sa time - fakat si bezobrazan
>, a sto je naj bolje ja se svaki put podrapam od smjeha :)))))))))
>DAMN :)

Jebi se, a kaj mislis zakaj inace tak pisem. :)))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: keval dass

"keval dass" wrote:

>There is no truth higher than ahimsa

I waited, and waited, and hoped that someone will react to this, but
noting. Oh well.

This is a totally ridiculous statement. Allow me to explain.
Nonviolence (ahimsa) is obviously a good thing. If everybody acted
violently or committed violent acts, we would undoubtedly get to live
in hell, where everybody would try to kill the others. But, ahimsa is
obviously not the ultimate anything. You need to argue _why_
nonviolence is good. You will do that by calling upon a deeper
principle which makes ahimsa valid - such as love for the other
beings, or love for God who resides in them, or the realization of the
higher truth according to which all beings are embodiments of one
soul. So we already have two principles superior to ahimsa, love and
realization. It seems that even discrimination, or correct thinking,
is superior to ahimsa, because without it, one wouldn't be able to see
its real value.
So, ahimsa is good because it is a result of either or both love and
realization. Love and realization have their foundation in the Divine,
and ahimsa has its foundation in them, and is therefore only a
secondary or tertiary quality.
Now, ahimsa also can't have anything to do with any basic principle of
functioning of the reality. Why? Because in this world, its opposite
is prominent. Everything is filled with violence and violent acts. One
being eats other beings in order to live; in fact, for all beings
other than plants, violence is a life-supporting factor.
Of course, then we get to the point that you need violence towards one
being in order to sustain life of another being, and so you need one
form of violence to sustain one form of nonviolence. Ahimsa is
obviously a relative principle, and has no absolute quality. You also
agree with me, because you are still alive, you didn't think that
nonviolence towards millions of viruses justifies letting yourself be
killed by a flu. So, even if we agree that nonviolence is good, and we
do, the fact remains that in order to practice nonviolence, you will
almost constantly need to use violence, or, choose between two forms
of violence and choose the lesser evil.

Nonviolence can justify killing people. For instance, if a lunatic
with an automatic rifle breaks into your home, and aims at your family
with intent to shoot immediately, the most nonviolent option available
would be if someone blew his brains out. An attempt to shoot at his
shoulder or something similar would probably only cause him to pull
the trigger.

Also, if you're in a peaceful country that's being invaded by the
Serbs, you know that your best shot at survival is to try to stop them
by all means possible. If you play nonviolence (as Bosnian president
Izetbegovic did) your people will be slaughtered on sight (see
Srebrenica). Those who aren't killed immediately will be brought to
concentration camps, where they'll be starved, tortured and/or raped,
and most will also be eventually killed. It is obvious that controlled
violence against the aggressors is the most nonviolent option
available. Therefore, a well armed defensive military force is the
best way to keep peace, if you have insane neighbours. All of that
stuff is practical experience since, to remind you, I'm from Croatia.

So, we proved first that nonviolence is by no means the highest truth,
because there are things in which it is founded, that are greater than
it, and also that the application of ahimsa in most practical cases
takes controlled violence and a choice of lesser evil. The corollary
of this is that this world does not support ahimsa as a primary
principle.

Now, this doesn't mean that God is a cruel insensitive bastard, or
that there is no God, as one could rightfully conclude from the
statement that ahimsa is the highest truth. It just means that there
are much more valuable things than nonviolence, one such being the
evolution of life and consciousness. Unlike ahimsa, the evolution is
obvious and very visible. The world that doesn't care about
nonviolence obviously feels that it's OK if you die, as long as you
learn from it. This is because God is the ultimate truth, and if
something leads to this ultimate truth, it is justified. It's OK to
use violence in order to teach someone a constructive lesson; the
entire law of karma follows this principle. It will teach you the
exact lesson that you need, and in a majority of cases it will be
painful to you, because karmic responses are the thing you get for
holding on to something lesser than God.

So, my conclusion is that God is the primary principle, His aspects
are, among others, consciousness and love, and ahimsa is merely an
attempt to apply these principles in life, which can sometimes be
useful, and sometimes controlled violence will be even more useful.
Since we can also see that reality supports this conclusion, and that
controlled violence, for instance slapping a hysterical person's face
in order to calm him down, can produce the best results. Also, since
people are firmly grounded in illusions of all sorts, a combination of
positive and negative aspects of teaching provides the best results;
positive aspects mean showing the ideal example and explaining the
highest reality, and negative aspects mean to criticize wrong actions,
thoughts and attachments to the irrelevant things.

These are the basic things and a display of yogic thinking.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: jody

jody wrote:
>Self realization is not an experience.

Now where did you read that?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Mama Treya

Mama Treya wrote:
>>>The fact is you can not tell someone they are or are not afraid of
>>>death since you are not that person. Your so-called fact is nothing
>>>more than a statement of ignorance.
>>
>>The fact is that everyone in materiel world is afraid of death, unless
>>he is too dim to be afraid or unless he is a completely self-realized
>>person.
>
>The fact is you are making a statement again from ignorance, since you
>do not know every single person in the world, nor do you know their
>thoughts, feelings etc you are doing nothing more than stating what
>you think / or believe.

Actually, having in mind how many people commit suicide every year,
his statements are obviously groundless.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: SLAP

"SLAP" wrote:
>Ma ne brine mene Romana, nego si me Ti sad zabrinuo jer si ispoljio naivnost
>naspram "chitanja" mene/a to nije prvi put/ a ja bih volio da napredujess u
>mudrosti. U biti si sa intelektom dosta dalje od godina koje imass ali
>imass dosta naivnih poteza pa sa mudrosscu padass ispod prosjeka. Rasipass
>se sa intelektom i trossiss,sstedi se chovjeche! Ne morass na svaku stvar
>reagirati kao da si dezzurni komentator. Istina nikad nije ugrozzena i nitko
>je ne treba braniti.

Sad bih ja rekao da si glup ko kurac, ali necu da ne uvrijedim kurac.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org