mdhjwh wrote:
>Good gracious me - and I imagined this may be an
>obscure little cult and what do I dig up The Krsnas !
>My experience of these people has always been a joy.
>Are they one and the same?

Actually no - vaisnava is a larger term than the Hare Krishna
movement; Hare Krsna movement was founded by Abhaya Charanavinda
Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada, who came to preach in New York during
the hippy era, in the 60's. He was one of the disciples of
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, the leader of the Gaudiya Math, a vaisnava
organization from Bengal, India.
Gaudiya vaisnavism is some sort of a mainstream branch of the vaisnava
philosophy; it was founded by Caitanya some 500 years ago. "Vaisnava"
basically means "visnuite", "one who worships Vishnu". For the exact
meaning of the term it is necessary to know some Indian history and
philosophy. In Indian personalistic philosophy there is a mainstream
belief that says that there is just one supreme divinity, which is the
causeless cause of all, and all other "gods" are just lesser
principles derived from that primordial principle. The difference
between sects is basically about who's God. The shaivites say that
Shiva is God, shaktas say that Shakti is the Goddess, and vaisnavas
say that Vishnu is God. There are probably other less known sects that
I don't know much of, but these three are the most important ones.
Of course, there are also the impersonalists and combinations. The
personalists say that God is a person, whereas the impersonalists say
that God is a principle. In perspective of human relationship with the
supreme principle there are also several views: advaita, vishista
advaita and dvaita. Advaita (sanskrt for "non-duality") says that
brahman (the absolute reality) is identical with atman (human essence,
the highest self) and that there is no difference, and the goal is to
achieve the realization of that unity. That system was advocated by
Sankaracarya (8th century) and his followers. The next system,
vishista-advaita (sanskrt for "nonduality of the qualified") was
founded by Ramanuja (11-12th century), basically says that people
aren't one with God, but they can be if they are really nice and pure.
The third system, dvaita (sanskrt for "duality"), founded by Madhva in
the 13th century , says that no way people are one with God, and they
can never be, because God is very big and pure, and we are small and
messed up, and the best we can do is to worship him and bathe in his
glory or whatever.
Hare Krishna are personalistic dualistic vaisnavas, which means that
they think that God is a person, that they are essentially separated
from God and can never be one with him, and that God is Visnu,
actually Krsna, whom they don't see as Visnu's avatar, but as the
highest principle; they actually say that Visnu is a somewhat lower
version of Krsna, but very close to the real thing.
The sect that is today known as Hare Krishna has its root in the:
---
Caitanya movement, intensely emotional form of Hinduism that has
flourished from the 16th century, mainly in Bengal and eastern Orissa.
It takes its name from the medieval saint Caitanya (1485-1533), whose
fervent devotion to Lord Krishna (Krsna) inspired the movement. For
Caitanya the legends of Krishna and his youthful beloved, Radha, were
both symbolic of and the highest expressions of the mutual love
between God and the human soul. Bhakti (devotion) superseded all other
forms of religious practice and was conceived as complete
self-surrender to the divine will. The Caitanya movement had its
beginnings in Navadvipa (Bengal), the saint's birthplace. From the
first, a favourite and characteristic form of worship was group
singing known as kirtana (or samkirtana). This consisted of the
singing of simple hymns and the repetition of God's name, accompanied
by the sounding of a drum and cymbals and by a rhythmic swaying of the
body that continued for several hours and usually resulted in states
of religious exaltation.
Caitanya was neither a theologian nor a writer, and organization of
his followers was initially left up to his close companions,
Nityananda and Advaita. These three are called the three masters
(prabhu), and their images are established in temples of the sect.
A theology for the movement was worked out by a group of Caitanya's
disciples who came to be known as the six gosvamins (religious
teachers; literally, "lords of cows"). At Caitanya's request, this
group of scholars remained in Vrndavana, near Mathura, the scene of
the Krishna-Radha legends. The six gosvamins turned out a voluminous
religious and devotional literature in Sanskrit, defining the tenets
of the movement and its ritual practices. Their reestablishment of the
pilgrimage sites of Vrndavana and Mathura was an achievement of
importance for all Vaisnavas (devotees of Lord Vishnu). Although
Caitanya appears to have been worshipped as an incarnation of Krishna
even during his lifetime, the theory of his dual incarnation, as
Krishna and Radha in one body, was systematically developed only by
the later Bengali hymnists.
The present leaders of the sect, called gosvamins, are (with some
exceptions) the lineal descendants of Caitanya's early disciples and
companions. The ascetics are known as vairagins (the "dispassionate").
---
(Britannica)

About the founder of the Hare Krishna movement:
---
Bhaktivedanta, A(bhay) C(haranaravinda), also called SWAMI PRABHUPADA
(b. Sept. 1, 1896, Calcutta--d. Nov. 14, 1977, Vrindavan, Uttar
Pradesh, India), Indian religious leader and author who in 1965
founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, commonly
known as the Hare Krishna movement.
In 1920 Bhaktivedanta completed his B.A. in chemistry at the Scottish
Churches' College in Calcutta; by that time, his family had arranged a
marriage for him, and he later established a pharmacy business. In
1922 his guru, a spiritual leader of the Vaisnava Hindu sect, urged
him to preach the teachings of Krishna throughout the Western world.
Thereafter Bhaktivedanta devoted much time as lecturer, writer,
editor, and translator for the Vaisnava and in 1933 was formally
initiated as a disciple at Allahabad.
Because his family did not share his religious interests,
Bhaktivedanta turned over his business to a son and renounced all
family ties in 1954 to devote his full time to religious work. He
received the title of swami in 1959 and in 1965 sailed for Boston,
Mass., U.S. Several months later he moved to New York City, where he
established the headquarters of the Hare Krishna movement on the Lower
East Side. From a storefront, he taught classes on Vedic culture,
which he claimed could affect the consciousness of a world afflicted
with rampant materialism. The movement became especially popular among
young people, and many of the swami's books began to be studied on
college and university campuses.
Despite his failing health, Bhaktivedanta by the time of his death had
written and published more than 50 books on ancient Vedic culture and
had opened more than 100 centres throughout the world.
---
(Britannica)

I hope that this helps. :)

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

X-Ftn-To: Petar Spanja

petar@fly.srk.fer.hr (Petar Spanja) wrote:
>> Prvi si poceo ;)))))) Nisi valjda ocekivao da ti na takvu recenicu
>> odgovorim ozbiljno?? Pa poznas me ;)))))))
>> Promakla ti je recenica u kojoj sam (prije nekoliko mjeseci) napisao da
>> IMHO i Stvoritelj inkarnira i kroz inkarnacije se usavrsava i da i za
>> njega vrijede Zakoni Karme i Dharme.. naravno na Njegvom nivou;)?
>
>govoris o tome da se Stvoritelj mjenja? imho, on je uvijek savrsen,
>mjenja se samo njegovo ocitovanje.

Mislim da bi trebalo Felixa traziti da definira sto je on to mislio
pod "Stvoritelj".

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

X-Ftn-To: Zoran Veršec

"Zoran Veršec" wrote:
>> Da ne govorim o Tvojem pateticnom pljuvanju po
>>necemu o cemu nemas ni elementarne upucenosti.
>
>Tvoj stav o tome me ne zanima uopce kao sto me ne zanima ljudsko misljenje o
>nekim stvarima, sve sto me zanima je ono sto Bog misli...

Onda si ga krenuo traziti na krivom mjestu.

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

"Ron & Keli Conroy" wrote:

>The purpose of Kundalini yoga is what ?

Is that a serious question?

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

pada@pon.net wrote:
>[PADA: No, we were waiting to see how Daniel stood on the overall
>Vaishnavism issue (he seems to be a mayavadi) and before we could see
>how he stood on that, he came out swinging on behalf of homosexual
>pedophile guru lineage. And when we saw that he endorsed it, we then
>knew he was connected to your party either directly or not, and sure
>enough Jahnu and JD came to aid him recently. We predicted that he was
>a "victim" of the homosexual pedophile lineage and we were right, he
>defended it, and now your party just defended Daniel. So, you are
>connected just as we prophetically stated.]

You are indeed completely insane.

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

X-Ftn-To: Zoran Ver?ec

"Zoran Ver?ec" wrote:
>Topic je povezan sa ju?era?njim predavanjem na kojem sam bio nazo?an a vodio
>ga je Rabindhartna Maharaja. Tip je ina?e indijac koji se po?eo baviti
>meditacijom, yogom, transcedentalnim stanjima, astralnim putovanjima od
>malih nogu i dobio je naziv ili titulu hinduisti?kog pandita...ljudi su mu
>se klanjali kao bogu...njegov otac i djed pripadaju kasti Brahmana i tip je
>ju?er ispri?o svoju vrlo fascinantnu pri?u...
>Vrlo je bitno spomenuti kako se Maharaja obratio k Isusu Kristu nakon svog
>tog ispraznog religijskog (hindu) stafa...ina?e je internacionalni
>predava?...eto ukratko, a ako nekoga zanima mo?e do?i u Park Ribnjak -
>Centar Mladih Ribnjak danas 11.10.99 u 19:30 gdje ?e odr?ati predavanje na
>temu: "Kri?na, Buda, Muhamed, Krist - koji je pravi put?"

:))) Koja je ovo bedastoca... jednako kao sto na zapadu ima onih koji
se sa krscanstva preobrate na islam, buddhizam ili neku indijsku
sektu, tako ima i obrnutih slucajeva, dakle da se Indijci i Arapi
obrate na krscanstvo. Uzrok tome je sto su sve religije uzasno
zaprljane ogavnim tumacenjima u sredini u kojoj predstavljaju "pucke
religije", dakle na njih se furaju totalni luzeri, pa ce netko tko se
hoce necim pametnim baviti odgovor u pravilu potraziti "preko plota",
u nekoj drugoj religiji. I tamo ce nesto naci daleko prije nego u
laznoj religiji koja vlada kod njega doma.
Reklamirati krscanstvo tako sto ces dovesti nekakvog Indijskog pandita
(ekvivalent naseg doktora filozofije) koji se obratio na krscanstvo je
meni posve jadno. Da ne govorim o Tvojem pateticnom pljuvanju po
necemu o cemu nemas ni elementarne upucenosti.

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

soybean2k@stop.hotmail.com wrote:
>Danijel, it's clear to any thinking person that the sense of what you
>say above is 100% right on, but don't degrade yourself by lying down
>with pigs. PADA uses foul language because he can't help himself; lacking
>even the most basic serenity, he can't control the tongue. (All
>Vedic traditions agree that control of the tongue must necessarily
>precede devotional service, but Puranjana Dasa is not interested in
>Vedic traditions.) You, on the other hand, are more than capable of
>controlling what you say. You get mad and fly off the handle like
>we all do, but you have enough self-control to avoid foul language in
>this group, where I, at least, would rather not have to read it;
>I can't speak for anybody else but I imagine that there are others
>who feel as I do.

Please don't think that my words pointed towards Puranjana were just a
blowout of anger; they were chosen with surgical precision, and meant
to show him that the stick has two ends. I simply had enough of him
and his mentally deficient monologues, and the fact that I seldom
flame people doesn't mean that I can't do it very efficiently with
people of choice. ;)

About his arguments: in spite of himself, he occasionally managed to
point out some very disturbing facts, like pedophilia and
homosexuality in ISKCON. That doesn't surprise me that much - as I
pointed out in one of my earlier messages, that is more-less to be
expected in the environment of sexual repression and misogyny, but if
it somehow turns out that even 30% of what Puranjana wants us to
believe is true, then it adds up to a total disaster for ISKCON, and
very ugly conclusions have to be drawn. On the "sunday feasts" in
Croatia, some two years ago, when they were still regularly held, I
have personally witnessed some clearly homosexual behavior between
male ISKCON members. Seeing adult men caressing each other in public
wouldn't be so appalling, if there was also mixed-gender hugging and
caressing. Then it could be said that it's a normal way of showing
mutual affection, and that it doesn't have any sexual background. But
that was not so - from their body language it was perfectly obvious
that male-female contact is seen as outrageous.
That's why I'm inclined to think that Puranjana is basically pointing
out a real problem, although I'm outraged by him as a person. And I'm
afraid that the solution to the problem isn't to be found in the Hare
Krishna circles, because sexual freedom and equality of genders is
seen as some sort of a blasphemy there. People who repress their
sexuality think that sexual liberation will necessarily lead to total
promiscuity, and they bury everything under one more veil of lead. But
that is not the solution, and I know for a fact that liberated
sexuality _doesn't_ cause promiscuity, it actually causes healthy
celibacy in the largest majority of cases. If you saw my basic
meditation, you could see that it basically releases sexuality and
uses it as an engine of adoration. Do you know how my students, who
practice that approach, function sexually? Those who aren't married
live in effortless celibacy. There are no orgies, nothing, because
sexuality is unleashed, it flows freely, it doesn't need to blow out
steam in some dark corner. And since sex is not a problem,
consciousness is elevated to the higher spheres of functioning, away
from sex. That is the solution. As Maharishi Yogi wisely points out,
the enemy is really defeated when you can release him and let him live
in freedom, because you no longer fear him. The sexuality is defeated
when you can let it function freely, without fear of consequences,
because there are none. People with liberated sexuality don't have sex
with everyone; they have sex only with extremely special people with
whom they form lasting relationships. So, liberated sexuality doesn't
mean promiscuity, on the contrary, it means sexual harmony.
The degree of sexual frustration in some of this NG's members is such,
that they managed to see the yogini.jpg picture from my site as
pornography. I almost choked to death laughing when I've read that.
There is a beautiful naked woman on the picture, with the light
effects that represent the state of consciousness before the final
awakening of the throat chakra - the naked, unveiled power, beauty and
consciousness, united in the supra-mental substance, the realization
beyond thoughts, where thoughts still exist, but they are charged with
so much awareness that they slow down and melt into bliss. And what
did that person see on that picture? Pussy and tits. He saw
pornography. Why? It's obvious: because his sexuality is so repressed,
that he sees sexuality _everywhere_, and every display of female body
is seen as _filth_. It provokes porneia in his mind and then he
projects his inner problems outwards, projecting ugliness over beauty.
He can't see that on this picture the nudity is a symbol of freedom,
that it displays spirit that is completely free of sexuality, so there
is no need to cover the body. Sex with visuddha-based configuration of
the system? It's laughable to even suggest something like that. I had
that configuration of the system for some time (or I wouldn't be able
to paint it) and I had to walk barefoot and naked around the apartment
because the clothes interfered with the powerful energies that were
dissolving the physical substance of my body. I had to be completely
open to the surrounding energy, and clothes were causing me serious
discomfort. I was bathing in inner bliss, inhaled through the throat,
and my consciousness perceived states beyond description. Knowing God
in the heart is _nothing_ compared to that. It's not even beginner's
stage compared to that. Knowledge of God through the throat and higher
centers is something so vast, that no description is possible. The
mind is no longer a mind, because it stops and becomes an ocean of
realization beyond comprehension, and that's just for start.
When I point out someone's ignorance of yoga, he usually tells me that
Hare Krishnas are way above "that materialistic yoga", that they are
transcendental to that because they are associated with Krsna. They
can sell that to someone else, not me. I know the truth.

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

"Matija Kolaric" wrote:
>1. mislim - i to gotovo neprekidno.

Nije pravo pitanje mislis li, nego koliko kvalitetno. Sudeci po Tvojem
pisanju, da sam na Tvom mjestu ne bih se pretjerano razmetao svojim
umnim dosezima.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 18:25:46 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>>What is an authorized translation?
>
>A translation that is authorized in parampara. Parampara means that
>the the translation is authorized by the chain of spiritual masters
>leading all the way back to Krishna.

This is badly defined, to put it very mildly. Why is that? First of
all, we have to define what's the "active compound" of authority, and
what's just envelope it comes in. The way you put it (actually the way
Prabhupada seems to put it), the disciplic succession adds up to this:
God said something to someone, then he repeated that to his disciple,
who remembered everything and repeated it accurately to the next
disciple and so on, until the present day. That view is simply absurd.
I've seen a lot of parampara bragging on the Kundalini list, and
someone (Kurt Keutzer) said that hardly any disciplic succession in
the world today goes more than 500 years back without interruptions.
Tracing something to Brahma or Krsna in the light of those facts is
ridiculous. Buddhists, for instance, have serious difficulties in
tracing their lineages back to the Nalanda university; I don't think
that anyone can trace his lineage directly to Buddha. Similarly,
nobody can trace a lineage to Krsna, and that's a fact. Vaisnava
successions trace back to Caitanya, who founded the whole thing.
Similarly, advaita successions trace back to Sankaracarya. It's true
that those great masters had their gurus, but _they_ were the ones who
introduced the real thing, not their gurus, they were the inventive
ones who were able to bring out a new perspective.
If a lineage is that important to you, then Maharishi's comment of
gita is at least as authorized as Prabhupada's, since Maharishi's guru
was Brahmananda Sarasvati, Sankaracarya of the Jyotir math, which is
practically the highest title in India, AFAIK. He, too, has a very
long lineage:

narayanam padmabhavam vasistham
saktim ca tatputra parasaram ca
vyasam sukam gaudapadam mahantam
govinda yogindra mathasya sisyam
sri sankaracarya mathasya padmapadam
ca hastamalakam ca sisyam
tam trotakam vartikaram anyan
asmad gurun santat mantosmi

sruti-smrti-purananam
alayam karunalayam
namami bhagavad-padam
sankaram loka-sankaram

sankaram sankaracaryam
kesavam badarayanam
sutra-bhasya-krtau vande
bhagavantau punah punah

yad-dvare nikhila nilimpa-parisad
siddhim vidhatte-anisam
srimad-sri-lasitam jagadguru-padam
natvatma triptim gatah
lokajnana payoda-patan-dhuram
sri sankaram sarmadam
brahmananda sarasvatim guruvaram
dhyayami jyotirmayam.

(badly copied from "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on Bhagavad-gita")

But what does that all mean? Nothing, of course. The lineage means
only that he studied with Brahmananda Sarasvati from Sankaracarya's
tradition of Vedanta, but that fact alone would be meaningless without
personal experience of the sublime reality that Krsna revealed to
Arjuna. Since he has that experience (it is obvious from his writing),
he can comment it, say what it really is, describe some details, lead
someone to that same experience. The lineage isn't about memorizing
the message, it is about training pointed towards the realization of
the highest truth. If that realization is achieved, then the lineage
can go on uninterrupted. But if it is not, it's just an empty show,
and being a member of such an empty lineage is nothing to brag about.
What is a lineage good for if the highest reality remains unseen?
Nothing. So, the lineage is no merit, the personal enlightenment is
the merit. Lineage is just one possible way to achieve enlightenment.
I suggest that you take Maharishi's translation and compare it to
Prabhupada's yourself, and make your own judgment.

>>In my book, a translation of a holy
>>text is accurate if several conditions are fulfilled:
>
>
>
>It doesn't matter what it means in your book. Your book is obviously
>not authorized, since it is a product of your mind.

Of course it's a product of my mind. The question is what is the
source of my mind? Where does it come from? In what is it founded?
These are the relevant questions. Of course something had to go
through my mind in order to be written, but where did it originally
come from?

>The truth can
>never be ascertained merely by the mind or the intelligence, we need
>the mercy of Krishnas representatives. Without surrendering to their
>version you can just forget about knowing the imports of the Vedas.

Of what use would such understanding be? You hear and you believe.
Fine. But then you have to realize the truth yourself, in order to
_really_ understand.

>Without the aid of the spiritual masters like Srila Prabhupada you
>will be locked up in your own mental concoctions.

I don't think that Prabhupada can be of any help there. His books were
just an aggravation in my spiritual growth. They limit reality, put it
in a little box that can be controlled by the mind. Prabhupada's
universe doesn't exist outside the mind, so in order to be faithful to
Prabhupada, one must be voluntarily enslaved by the mind, by the
mental picture projected upon the universe. I rejected that sort of
limitations permanently years ago. The reality is what remains when
you turn off the mind. When you forget the parampara and all sorts of
intellectualizations. The reality is what is. The flow of reality that
is beneath the mind, that is the foundation of the mind. The calm
water below the waves of superficial consciousness. That is the
reality that flows out through the entire creation, through infinite
universes, galaxies, stars, planets and specks of dust. This is the
reality that sings through all the holy scriptures, remaining unbound
by them. This is the living God. That is what one must know, and by
that knowledge one is enlightened, not by blindly following a
preacher. Yesterday I flamed a student for imitating me in her
writing. Imitating is a serious mistake, because it separates one from
the inner creativity and brilliance. What is better, to eat an apple
yourself, or to have someone chew it up for you and then give it to
you? Knowledge has to be obtained directly, although guidance is
always necessary.

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

dario.mandir_removethis@zd.tel.hr (Dario Mandir [Novembre]) wrote:
>A sto kazes o vjerovanjima poput ovoga: Kupanje u ljudskoj krvi pomaze da
>sacuvamo (vjecnu) mladost, ti valjda spadaju u onu "ludu" skupinu :))

Naravno. :)

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