X-Ftn-To: Majorinc, Kazimir

kmajor@public.srce.hr (Majorinc, Kazimir) wrote:
>|>Probaj malo postivati norme kulturnog ophodjenja.
>|
>|Zasto, samo je ustvrdio ono sto je vise nego ocigledno.
>|
>
>Diskusije su puno puno bolje ako nitko ne utvrdjuje kompetenciju
>onog drugog nego se jednostavno drzi teme ili ignorira ono sto
>ga ne zanima ili misli da ne moze dobiti kompetentan odgovor. U
>suprotnom rasprava ide u smjeru da jedan drugome dokazujemo tko
>je pametniji, a mislim da je to ispod nivoa svih nas ovdje.

A cuj, izgleda malo bedasto kad Felixu koji je zivio godinama u
buddhistickom hramu na Tibetu pocnes objasnjavati buddhizam, a temelj
toga Ti je neka knjiga koju si procitao, pa Ti se ucinilo da u njoj
nesto pise. Ostale stvari koje pises, recimo ono s loto bubnjem i
kuglicama, spadaju u istu grupu, dakle sud o neogranicenom iz pozicije
ogranicenog. Normalno je da ce netko cija je svijest beskrajna imati
izmedju ostalog i takvo opazanje, ali je isto tako normalno da ce mu
iz te pozicije bavljenje lotom biti jednako zanimljivo kao Tebi broj
dlaka na nozicama vinskih musica. Jednako ce takvome biti nezanimljivo
Tebi nesto dokazivati. On vidi da je tome tako, a to hoces li Ti njemu
povjerovati ionako je irelevantno, naime ni on nije nesto spoznao tako
da je nekome nesto povjerovao, pa ces se i Ti uvjeriti jednom kad to
sam vidis, dakle za nekakvim dokazivanjem nema potrebe.

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

X-Ftn-To: Majorinc, Kazimir

kmajor@public.srce.hr (Majorinc, Kazimir) wrote:
>|>Sa bogom je tesko, on bi bio savrsen da nije tvorac svijeta, i
>|>da nije u njegovoj moci da ga napravi boljim. Ali onda ne bi bio
>|>svemocan, pa opet nebi bio savrsen. Dakle, nije savrsen.
>|
>|To uopce ne slijedi. Vec sam demonstrirao zasto. Svijet naime ne moze
>|biti savrsen jer bismo onda imali dva apsoluta (dakle dva
>|savrsenstva), a dva apsoluta ne mogu postojati po definiciji apsoluta,
>|prema tome bilo sto Bog stvori a da nije on sam nuzno bi moralo biti
>|manje od njega, dakle manje sveobuhvatno, a onda bi se u takvoj manje
>|sveobuhvatnoj realnosti moglo percipirati nesavrsenstvo.
>
>Vrlo zanimljiv izvod, jako mi se svidja. Mislim da lici na
>ontoloski dokaz o postojanju boga. Ima gresku, ali nije ju lako
>naci.

Ne mogu postojati dva apsoluta, jer bi tada bili u medjusobnom odnosu
i stoga relativni. Analogija s najjacim covjekom u gradu nije
primjenjiva, buduci da se tamo radi o relativnim odnosima.
Sve sto nije apsolut nuzno mora biti nesavrseno, na nacin da je manje
sveobuhvatno. Na jednak je nacin svaki podskup skupa R manje savrsen
od skupa R. Buduci da ne mogu biti dva apsoluta, nuzno je da sve sto
je stvoreno bude ograniceni podskup apsoluta. Na jednak je nacin N
podskup od R, i iako ima beskonacno mnogo elemenata, opet je manji od
R i ogranicen. Jednako tako, svjetovi u relativnom su manje savrseni
od Boga po prirodi stvari. Slijedi dakle da Bog moze biti nesavrsen
usprkos postojanju nesavrsenstva u stvorenom. Svjetovi, pak, mogu biti
savrseni u svojoj namjeni, ali ne opcenito. Recimo N je savrsen za
prebrojavanje stvari, ali neupotrebljiv za razlomke.

>Patnja je prilicno dobro odredjen pojam.

Patnja je subjektivno stanje, ne objektivna kategorija. Jednako kao
sto je i iluzija subjektivno stanje, a ne objektivna kategorija.

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

"Hari Har Singh" wrote:
>Uri Blumenthal schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>384407FB.3FE61EE7@watson.ibm.com...
>> Danijel Turina wrote:
>> > >At least - of course "all paths leads to rome" :-)
>> >
>> > Well, I beg to disagree, at least one leads from my home to where my
>> > car is parked. :)
>>
>> Ah, you just haven't followed it long enough. (:-)
>
>I would say, the "rome" we speak of can even be found in your car (or on
>your way to it ...)

I know what you are trying to say. You want to say that the relative
gravitates towards the absolute, and that the existence of all
individual beings, as perceived in the relative, has the absolute as
its eventual destiny. I, however, disagree. To me it seems that the
absolute is the origin and the foundation of all the beings and all
the creation, from which everything grows and develops. The goal is
not to be one with the absolute, because you already are. That would
be attaining the attained. The process of evolution goes in the
direction of individualizing the potential qualities of the absolute
in the individual egos. Therefore, the goal is not to get rid of the
ego and realize the absolute Self, it is to attain the divine nature,
to possess the divine qualities, to make the ego divine. Looking at it
this way, it is no longer necessary to approximate everything to
merely a temporary illusion projected upon the transcendental Self, it
makes sense to talk about the individual souls with the free will,
which can be utilized in either direction. If the free will were
designed to go only in the positive direction, it would not be free.
It is therefore possible to make mistakes, to go in a wrong direction,
and nothing is predetermined. There are the wrong paths, and one can
choose them and be utterly ruined. There are also the right paths, and
one can choose them and become "perfect as our Father in heaven". The
choice is up to us.
This is what my original comment was all about, although a bit
abbreviated. ;)

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

kmajor@public.srce.hr (Majorinc, Kazimir) wrote:
>|kmajor@public.srce.hr (Majorinc, Kazimir) wrote:
>|>Arjuna je trebao reci: ako radis zlo, radi to bez mene.
>|
>|Arjuna je bio dovoljno pametan da zna da je Bog mudriji od njega.
>|
>|
>
>To nije bas ono sto ti kazes da ljudi trebaju biti slobodna
>bica, a ne roboti.

Jedno je biti slobodan, a drugo je biti u zabludi. Moze covjek biti
slobodan i u zabludi, i slobodan i u pravu. Ako slobodnom voljom
zakljuci da je Bog pametniji od njega i da ga treba slijediti, onda ja
takvu odluku zovem mudrom, a njoj suprotnu budalastom.

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

Uri Blumenthal wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote:
>> >At least - of course "all paths leads to rome" :-)
>>
>> Well, I beg to disagree, at least one leads from my home to where my
>> car is parked. :)
>
>Ah, you just haven't followed it long enough. (:-)

But if I did that, I'd fall off the turtle at the far end. ;)

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

dswgos@webtv.net (DSW) wrote:
>Dear Danijel Turina...
>
>I...DSW...the Most Wonderful and Lovable Guru on Planet Earth...Proclaim
>You to Be One of the Most Devious Spiritual Persons on the Face of
>Planet Earth...
>
>Because of this...I went to the High Spiritual Court of
>Ergobobulous...God of Consciousness...and asked for a Ruling about this
>Matter of You being a Devious Spiritual Person and the Judge Ruled...
>
>Guilty as Charged...Danijel Turina is One of the Most Devious Spiritual
>Persons on the Face of Planet Earth...with Love...DSW

Wow!
"Mom, look, I became spiritual, the nice man said so!"
;)))

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

nirvanablue@my-deja.com wrote:
>The two religious groups who influenced vegetarianism in India were the
>Buddhists and the Jains...who both spoke out against animal slaughter
>and meat eating and its practice by the Vedic followers who before that
>time consumed meat and sacrificed animals.

Exactly. The vegetarian issue was presumably first brought up by the
Jains, who taught "ahimsa paramo dharmah", the nonviolence as the
highest dharma.
Also, the theory of reincarnation, in the form taught by Prabhupada,
is not Vedic; actually, if one reads Mahabharata, one will get a
completely different picture: Vyasa believed that one goes to either
some sort of heaven or some sort of hell, determined by one's deeds in
life, and that reincarnation is a very peripheral issue - if one is
reborn, it is maybe twice, certainly not all the time. The idea of
perpetual rebirth (samsara), as painted on he HK pictures, is
completely Buddhist, the only modification to the Buddhist theory is
the form of salvation. The Buddhist theory is even more coherent than
Prabhupada's. Buddha taught that there is no self (atman) and that the
perception of self is the results of samskaras (impressions), vasanas
(subtle desires) and karmasayas (karmic seedlings). Once the illusion
is broken by the right conduct, one perceives only nirvana, as the
supreme reality that is beyond the definitions of existence and
nonexistence. It makes far more sense than the heaven with cows and
bhaktas - Buddha would say that such a heaven is merely a temporary
illusion, and a part of samsara.
In Buddhism, there is reincarnation, but not reincarnation of self,
but reincarnation of karman, the past deeds. The results of the deeds
are reincarnated, and the person is what is created when the illusion
of samskaras, vasanas and other trash is projected upon the reality.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 19:50:07 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>
>>You are one of the worst specimens of human trash I have ever seen,
>>and I've seen some. If you are trying to become the minister of
>>offense in the government of hell after you die, then just keep up the
>>good work. The mere fact that ISKCON attracts garbage like yourself
>>says enough.
>
>Listen to the boy whine. He sounds like some born-again christian
>throwing fire and brimstone.

What is it, chicken shit? Does your own medicine hurt your tender
little ass when applied to yourself?

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

nirvanablue@my-deja.com wrote:
>mantra 18.
>If a man desire a learned, famous public speaker, a sweetly-persuasive
>debater, able to chant ALL the Vedas and endowed with a full span of
>life, he and his wife should boil rice with MEAT, either VEAL or BEEF,
>and eat it with ghee. That may lead to the birth of such a son.
>
>The sexist remarks (which I totally disagree with) I did'nt leave out as
>I wanted all to see the full translation of these verses.
>
>Seems to be alot of references condoning eating MEAT in Vedic
>culture.....

Not to forget that Pandavas ate meat (when they were hiding with the
king Virata, Bhima was the butcher). Buddha ate meat, and Jesus as
well. And the final jewel to finish the harekrishnian attitude on
"cleanliness":
--
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone,
and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him `unclean' by
going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him
`unclean.' [6]" After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his
disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked.
"Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can
make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his
stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared
all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes
him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil
thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice,
deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils
come from inside and make a man `unclean.'"
(Mk 7,14-23)
--

There were people at his time, who were as concerned with the
"regulative principles" as are the Hare Krishna, and they were called
Pharisees. Enough said.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>Now slither back into your hole.

You are one of the worst specimens of human trash I have ever seen,
and I've seen some. If you are trying to become the minister of
offense in the government of hell after you die, then just keep up the
good work. The mere fact that ISKCON attracts garbage like yourself
says enough.

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