nirvanablue@my-deja.com wrote:
>Are all Buddhists vegetarians?
>
> No. The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but
>meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing,

I think that this view is rather perverse. If people buy meat in a
store, it comes from a dead animal, but when all the meat is sold, the
store owner will order more meat from the butcher. This will cause
another animal to be killed in order to provide meat for the buyers.
However, if the buyers don't buy meat, there will be no further need
to kill.

I'll quote a chapter from my book on vegetarianism:
--
Vegetarianism

The cessation of taking the stimulating substances (alcohol, drugs
etc.) and of eating meat is often assumed to be the prerequisite of
the spirituality. As valid and reasonable as those things are, on
which I'll write in more detail, the problem occurs when someone
starts thinking that the vegetarian diet itself means that he attained
some height of spiritual development, and starts seeing himself as
superior to the "sinners" who eat meat, or smoke, or engage themselves
in some other form of "impure activities". Such an approach is a ten
times greater aggravating circumstance in the spiritual progress than
eating meat, smoking, drinking alcohol and abusing drugs together. It
is better for a man to do all these things, and be kind and good to
his fellow men, than to "live the pure life" and for that reason
become proud and despise the "impure ones". Rejection of the others,
and thinking others to be lower than oneself, is the greatest of
obstacles in the spiritual development.
Once that we have eliminated that aspect of things, the valid reasons
why it is not wise to eat meat remain. First of all, the meat is a low
quality nutrient filled with all sorts of toxic and almost
indigestible substances, and it doesn't provide anything that one
couldn't get from the other sources, such as milk, fruits, vegetables,
leguminosae and cereals. So, from a nutritional point meat has a low
quality. From the energetic point the prana contained in the meat is
either the second or the third transformation of the solar prana, so
that it is at least one, and sometimes even two scales of magnitude
inferior to the pranic charge contained in the vegetable nutrients.
And the most important factor of all, there is the karmic aspect of
killing the animals. It is a sin to kill any being, either plants or
animals, but there is a vast difference in the degree, and most often
it is not even necessary to kill the plants for food, if we feed on
the fruits and seeds (that means all the fruits, cereals, leguminosae
and most vegetables), so that the issue of killing, drawn by those who
say that it is a sin to kill the plants as well as the animals, so it
is equally problematic to feed on both plants and animals, is
pointless. Besides, maybe the greatest problem with eating meat isn't
the killing, but the indifference to the suffering of the other
beings, which creates the karma which will sooner or later lead to
facing the consequences of one's deeds, when we figure out what it
takes for a piece of meat to be brought to our table. Those who say
that it is the same problem to kill the plants and the animals were
probably not in a position to test this principle by choosing the
lesser of two evils: to pick soybeans and wheat from a field, or to
slay a cow with a knife. It is clear that it is the same problem to
pick a can of beans or a can of meat in a store, and the people who
think about food as of something that is made in the store will
logically assume that it is the same thing. But it is not. The meat
industry includes a great amount of suffering of the animals, as well
as the horrible sights of the slaughterhouses (which I would advise
the advocates of meat eating to visit), and a man cannot accept such
things as normal unless he has hardened his heart to the suffering of
the others. For this reason it is best to exclude the food made by
killing the animals from the menu, and thus be freed from the moral
paradoxes.
There are the people who are the exception to this rule, the ones
whose bodies are physically unable to survive on the vegetable diet;
they exist, but they are few. Likewise, when a man finds himself in a
position to either eat meat or starve, it is better to eat meat, for
the optimal functioning of the human body is of great importance; the
human body is difficult to create, it takes lots of time and effort,
and that makes the human existence extremely precious. It is thus
justified to sacrifice the other beings for a man, but it should be
done with measure, and a man who feels for all the beings will avoid
taking more than is needed for his functioning.
Within the vegetarian nutritional style people often make mistakes,
failing to understand that the natural cycle of the plants should not
be interrupted, so they feed on the freshly sprouted seeds,
cauliflower and similar transitional phases in the life of the plants.
Such an interruption of a life cycle creates an ugly form of stress on
the astral and prana, and such food can seriously disrupt the
functioning of the human energetic system, and if it becomes a common
practice it can lead to cancer and similar diseases. The pranic layer
of the sprouting plant is such, that such prana, when assimilated into
the system, has a tendency to continue the speedy growth of the
tissues, thus disturbing the natural pranically-physical balance of
the cells; such an abrupt growth usually means cancer. It can thus
happen that the people who lead "healthy lives" die from cancer on
everything.
Also, before meals we should remind ourselves of the source from which
all the blessings and gifts come to us, and notice the omnipresent
Divine nature in the food, accept the meal with gratitude as a gift
from God, for all the aspects of our lives have to be aligned with God
and devoted to him. We should strive towards making all of our
actions, including eating, aligned with the Divine laws, for if we
allow the disharmony to penetrate any aspect of our lives, we will
lose the criteria of value, and our actions will become disorganized,
chaotic and wrong.
Such strictness in judgment should be applied only to oneself; towards
oneself one should be strict and apply the most severe criteria;
towards the others, one should be kind and tolerant, one should see
the others as the saints, seeing oneself as the sinner, and only then
shall we attain the true spirituality. Resenting the others for the
things that we see as their flaws is a sign of severe spiritual fall,
and it is a distraction of attention from one's own faults, an once we
did that, it means that we have diverted our look from the true goal.
In nutrition, as well as in all the other aspects of our functioning
on Earth, we should uphold the principle under which it is most
important to keep in mind our own problems and solve them, looking at
our own flaws instead of the flaws of the others. If we want to change
the others, let us first make ourselves into the perfect example, on
which we would want to build the world.

Copyright (C) Danijel Turina 1999., All Rights Reserved.
--
--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

Damir Orlic wrote:
>Naravno. Osim toga cuo sam osobno par 'nestandardnih' NDE iskustva.


Pa, i nisu toliko nestandardna, cak su cini mi se prilicno uobicajena.

>>nuzno da bi covjek ispravno funkcionirao, a koji puta ga u tome moze
>>cak i omesti. Bitnije je postepeno profinjavati vlastitu svijest sve
>>dok takva stanja ne postanu manje-vise normalna i uobicajena. Od
>>izoliranog iskustva tesko da moze biti trajne koristi, cisto zato sto
>>je ono privremeno, ono dodje i prodje.
>
>Nekako mi se cini da ponekad nije dovoljno biti samo malo bolji, nego
>da se covjek mora iznova roditi.

Ponovna rodjenja su sastavni dio procesa. Vec su pisali decki o tome.

>>Veliki je problem u relativnom funkcionirati kako treba; dakle kao
>> [.....]
>>kosu zamjeraju to sto se njime ne moze kuhati rucak, zive u zabludi, i
>>zato pate.
>
>Slazem se. Ovo je za FAQ ... :-)

Upisano. ;)

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"tsa" wrote:
>"and I created Myself as a multitude... where everything is still Me...
>playing the game of evolution."
>
>huh? sounds like this "Me" rather than playing the game of evolution is
>playing the game of spanking his monkey.

May God have mercy on us all.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Sini?a Kne?evi?

"Sini?a Kne?evi?" wrote:
>U knjizi "Nauka o samospoznaji" sef HK-i je naveo simptome koji slijede
>mantranjem Mahamantre,citiram:
>"U pocetku mozda nece biti prisutno svih osam vrsta transcedentalnog
>zanosa:1-osamucenost,2-znojenje,3-jezenje koze,4-zapinjanje u
>govoru,5-drhtanje tijela,6-blijedilo,7-plakanje u zanosu,8-trans."
>Jeli netko vidio ijednog pripadnika sekte s cini mi se,jasno naglasenim
>simptomima dizanja kundalini ovako opisanim?
>I moze li se kundalini podici i njihovim metodama(manranjem)?

Oni nemaju veze s tim; naprotiv, HK su totalna suprotnost tome. S
Kundalini je imao veze Caitanya, ovi danas su najgori mrak. Njihovim
mantranjem se mozes jedino upropastiti, nista drugo.
Izvorno, cijela stvar je bila manje-vise upotrebljiva Kundalini
tehnika, ali se to totalno izopacilo. Postoje sustavi na prvi pogled
slicni onome sto rade HK, ali pravi, gdje postoji istinska moc u
pozadini svega, i gdje se ljudi fakat prosvijetle. Koliko sam ja
pricao s HK na alt.religion.vaisnava, to je najgora hrpa ludjaka koju
sam ja u zivotu vidio. Totalno su poremeceni po svim mogucim aspektima
postojanja.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"Stri nayakA bina shanti" wrote:
>>2. By what qualities do you define Prabhupada as a liberated soul?
>>
>If you want to know how Srila Prahbupada is a liberated soul, you can read
>his biography by Satsvarupa Maharaj, or the various other biographies
>written by his disciples.

I've read it.

>We've seen the garbage, naked women, etc., on your website.

:))))))))) ROTFLMTO (Rolling On The Floor Laughing Myself To Orgasm)
:))))))))))))
Yes, you could see many things there. They are meant for the wise to
attain enlightenment, and to repel the fools.

>This says it
>all:
>
>"I am all alone... nothing but Me exists... there Is only One, and I Am the
>Self in everything... reality in rocks, plants, animals, humans...
>undivided. I give life and existence to all manifestation, I am eternally
>free, playing my game of hide-and-seek, and I created Myself as a
>multitude... where everything is still Me... playing the game of evolution."

Yes, but it doesn't say it all, it just points towards it, and when
you experience this truth, you will find your peace, and the days of
your struggle will be over, for One is the root and the foundation of
everything, on One all the worlds are built and from One they all
grow. There is only One who observes and lives, there is only One
reality, undivided, beyond division, and it gives hope beyond all
promise, for it is the love in all love, the joy in all joy, the
beauty in all beauty, the power in all power, the mind in all the
minds... on Me the worlds are built, and through Me they all exist.

>You are not God, you are Dog

There is only One, in all beings... in dogs, gods and men alike. The
wise know this as the truth, and the multitude of forms does not
confuse their vision. Om, Shanti.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"Stri nayakA bina shanti" wrote:
>You are not God, you are Dog

:)) Your ability to perceive the truth is, well, harekrishnian. :))))
LOL :))

If you think that Prabhupada is a pure bhakta, than I'll be proud to
wear a collar on the same merit.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"Stri nayakA bina shanti" wrote:
>No, no a priori judgment of Srila Prahbupada is made.

>My position, of course, is that Srila Prabhupada is a liberated soul, and
>being a liberated soul, did not commit mistakes.

:)) You are contradicting yourself.
If no a priori judgment is made, then you can define the term
"liberated soul", observe Prabhupada's qualities, and then compare the
two. If Prabhupada fits the definition, he is a liberated soul.
Simple.

I have two questions:

1. What is your definition of a liberated soul, and
2. By what qualities do you define Prabhupada as a liberated soul?

Let's assume that I make two kinds of faulty definitions of a
liberated soul, definition a) and definition b).

a) a liberated soul is a person who constantly thinks and speaks of
God.

b) a liberated soul is the one who is in perfect alignment with its
dharma.

By first definition, most Jehova's witnesses and Jesuite students are
liberated souls (oh yes, Prabhupada as well).
By the second definition, my cat is a liberated soul, because he is in
perfect alignment with his dharma.
"Stri nayakA bina shanti" wrote:
>No, no a priori judgment of Srila Prahbupada is made.

>My position, of course, is that Srila Prabhupada is a liberated soul, and
>being a liberated soul, did not commit mistakes.

:)) You are contradicting yourself.
If no a priori judgment is made, then you can define the term
"liberated soul", observe Prabhupada's qualities, and then compare the
two. If Prabhupada fits the definition, he is a liberated soul.
Simple.

I have two questions:

1. What is your definition of a liberated soul, and
2. By what qualities do you define Prabhupada as a liberated soul?

Let's assume that I make two kinds of faulty definitions of a
liberated soul, definition a) and definition b).

a) a liberated soul is a person who constantly thinks and speaks of
God.

b) a liberated soul is the one who is in perfect alignment with its
dharma.

By first definition, most Jehova's witnesses and Jesuite students are
liberated souls (oh yes, Prabhupada as well).
By the second definition, my cat is a liberated soul, because he is in
perfect alignment with his dharma.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

Domchijev FAQ konferencije mozete naci na http://religijafaq.cjb.net/

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"scs" wrote:
>Ananda wrote:
>> . . . it would prove he could not possibly have been a liberated soul.
>>I think this is setting the bar artificially high.
>
>What is the basis of your statement, begining with "I think. . ."? Who
>cares what you, or I, or everyone else thinks?

I do.

>We should care about what
>shastra, as explained to us by our acharyas, thinks. This is what Lord
>Krishna says:

What is shastra? Merely a material to think about, and form one's own
opinion. It can be useful, but should it be accepted unconditionally?
No. When you meet God, accept him unconditionally, but everything else
should be accepted with a grain of salt. Some things should be
accepted with an entire salt factory. ;)

>No, not a mistake. That is not the version of scripture. In contrast to a
>pure devotee, a conditioned soul's unique, distinguishing features are that
>he commits mistakes, has imperfect senses, is prone to illusion, and has a
>cheating propensity:

Well, Prabhupada had all those qualities, and therefore it is absurd
to call him pure. He might have been less crazy than the drugged
hippies in the '60s, but that's all. His purity was very relative, and
very exaggerated. If I would call someone pure, it would be some
spiritual giant, such as Vivekananda, Sankaracarya or Arjuna. With
them, such a line of argumentation could even make sense, since it is
likely that they would do things that are beyond normal people's
understanding, and one should look for the deeper meaning instead of
calling something an error. But with Prabhupada, who mostly said utter
nonsense, and only occasionally said something that made sense, and
who had no spiritual power at all, this is absurd.

>"The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the
>conditioned soul has four kinds of defects." (Sri Isopanisad, Introduction)
>
>To claim that Srila Prabhupada had these defects is contrary to the
>definition of what a liberated devotee is. Just to show you how
>anti-devotional this is, consider the following logical progression:

One should first see what the definition of a pure devotee is. Then
one should see if someone fits the definition or not. This is a
logically correct procedure. But axiomatically stating that someone is
a pure devotee, and then fitting the qualities of that person into the
definition, is a logical error.

> - A person who is free from the four defects is a liberated soul.
> - Srila Prabhupada is not free from these defects
> (at least one of them--he commits mistakes).
> - Therefore, Srila Prabhupad cannot be a liberated soul.

Of course. And if you were free from the misconception that he _must_
be a pure devotee (or your world would be immediately crushed), then
you would have no problem with such an obvious conclusion.

>But if we accept the above definition of a pure devotee (who is therefore a
>liberated soul), and you accept that Srila Prabhupada was such a liberated
>soul, then we must conclude that Srila Prabhupada did not commit mistakes.

Here we go, that's where the invalid premise leads you, into pits of
dark ignorance, into illusion and away from the reality. Just observe,
and name it as you see it, and that will be the path towards the
perfection.

>To say that Prabhupada made mistakes is always incorrect, because a pure
>devotee cannot commit mistakes.

This attitude is utterly ridiculous and unworthy of argument. You can
as well repeat that 2+3*5=25, it will still be 17.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

Damir Orlic wrote:
>>Pa, ne bih se slozio s ovim, ne u cijelosti. Ne mozes pobrkati andjela
>>s Bogom, osim ako si stvarno pocetnik.
>
>Zato sam je i nazvao greska prvoga koraka. Pocetnik ce moci pasti na
>tu foru kada vidi nesto takvo, jer nikada nije vidio nesto "takvo".

Mislim da postoji primjer za to, u NDE iskustvima osoba koja je
klinicki mrtva, koja je prosla kroz tunel i nasla se "u svjetlosti"
najcesce vidi neko bice koje je velika faca, koju odmah identificira s
Isusom ili nekim drugim koga drzi esencijom kula. Dozivljaj okruzenja
se odmah tumaci kao "Bog" ili "Bozja ljubav". Ne kazem da to nije
istina, ali nije najvisa istina.

>>promjene perspektive ili nekakvog tome slicnog "prosvjetljenja". Ni
>>priblizno. A cak i kod stvarnog iskustva Apsoluta (nirvikalpa samadhi)
>>uvijek ostaje pitanje koliko je takvo iskustvo korisno osobi pojedinca
>>u relativnom svijetu. Takvo iskustvo ostavlja trag, ali najcesce osoba
>>ostaje manje-vise ista kao i prije, ali s dubljim uvidom u bit stvari.
>
>Slazem se sa svime sto si napisao. E da mi je jos to i dozivit ;)))))

Takvo iskustvo uvijek predstavlja Bozju milost, ali najcesce nije
nuzno da bi covjek ispravno funkcionirao, a koji puta ga u tome moze
cak i omesti. Bitnije je postepeno profinjavati vlastitu svijest sve
dok takva stanja ne postanu manje-vise normalna i uobicajena. Od
izoliranog iskustva tesko da moze biti trajne koristi, cisto zato sto
je ono privremeno, ono dodje i prodje.

Da malo rasirim temu na drugi thread:

Veliki je problem u relativnom funkcionirati kako treba; dakle kao
relativno bice "nositi" Bozanska stanja i kvalitete. Vrlo malo ljudi
svojim postojanjem "cisti" prostor oko sebe, vecina ga ili prlja, ili
se s tom prljavstinom stapa i identificira. Rijetki su oni koji mogu
prati sudje tako da ga ciste, ali stvarno ciste, a jos su rjedji oni
koji mogu skuhati rucak kako spada. Bozanska stanja se ocituju u
normalnom zivotu - ne kao neki dodatni elementi, kako si to zamislja
Kazimir, da bi onaj koji se prosvijetlio trebao znati odgovore na sva
pitanja; ne, prosvjetljenje se ocituje tako da radis iste stvari kao i
ostali, ali se u njima osjeca sklad, osjeca se "ono nesto". Svi
elementi su isti, ali su u skladu. Na fizickom planu se nece vidjeti
previse razlika kad covjek ovlada visim razinama. Razlike ce se
vidjeti recimo u "punoci" onoga sto on radi, to ima nekoliko dimenzija
vise od onoga sto ce raditi netko tko nema tu dubinu. Nije razlika u
tome da prosvjetljenoga nece nista boljeti; razlika je u tome da
prosvjetljeni zbog toga nece patiti, a neprosvjetljeni hoce, zato sto
prosvjetljeni razumije stvari, njemu su jasne zakonitosti visih
razina, jasna mu je uloga fizicke razine, i nece joj pripisivati
stvari koje joj nisu svojstvene, niti ce od nje ocekivati nesto sto od
nje ne treba ocekivati. Mlincic za kavu je savrsen ako dobro melje
kavu, a patnja nastupa ako njime pokusas cesljati kosu. Prosvjetljeni
dakle zna cemu svijet sluzi i za to ga koristi, i ne pokusava u njemu
naci ono cega tamo nema; on to trazi na drugim mjestima, gdje toga
ima. On ceslja kosu cesljem, a ne mlincicem za kavu. Oni koji fenu za
kosu zamjeraju to sto se njime ne moze kuhati rucak, zive u zabludi, i
zato pate.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net