"Matija Kolaric" wrote:
>Romana Panduric wrote in message
>news:380094fd.380860@news.tel.hr...
>> To je isto rekao Steiner? Sta je s recimo yogijskim pravcima ?
>Ne znam da li je i on rekao to isto.
>Rijec "pogani" oznacuje i "yogijske pravce", posto se ne radi o krscanstvu.

Bojim se da nemas previse pojma. Rijec "paganus" znaci "seljak". Naime
u doba krscanskog Rima gradovi su prihvatili krscanstvo kao sluzbenu
religiju Carstva, za razliku od sela u kojima su se idalje stovali
stari bogovi. Pogani su dakle "falsorum idolorum colatores", iliti
stovatelji kumira. Bojim se da Ti je Steiner ovdje za kurac (kao sto
je i inace).

>A sto bi bilo da zabe imaju krila ?

Imali bi zmajeve krastace.

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

X-Ftn-To: Dario Mandir

dario.mandir_removethis@zd.tel.hr (Dario Mandir [Novembre]) wrote:
>>Ako nesto nije jasno, pitaj. :)
>>
>A sada dalje .. vjere poput wikke ( mislim da se tako pise : vjetice i sl.)

Pise se "wicca", od "wicca craeft", iliti anglizirano "witchcraft".

>i pagana (poganskih vjera ) ??? ima ko pojma o tome sto ? :)

Meni se cini da je to sve nesto u stilu nama su se zamjerili krscani
pa idemo biti pogani. :) To su nekakve neodredjene i nejasne mjesavine
kopija starih obreda (npr. druidskih i starogrckih), od svuda
sakupljenih "bozanstava prirode", stovanje nizih sila, i to sve
odjeveno u formu "stovanja Boginje u svemu". Sve u svemu, nista
posebno pametno i vrijedno spomena.

>A da ne govorim o ljudima koji vjeruju da su vampiri i sl. stvari :))

Tu imas vise slojeva, imas one koji su ludi, a imas i stvarni
energetski vampirizam, koji je najcesci medju onima koji ne misle da
su vampiri, nego naprotiv drze da su "divne, ali neshvacene osobe", a
citav zivot sustavno iskoristavaju i "cijede" druge ljude. Takvih se
treba jako dobro cuvati jer ih ima posvuda. Takav Ti nece piti krv,
ali ces se poslije razgovora s njim osjecati ko iscjedjena kuhinjska
krpa.

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

X-Ftn-To: Dario Mandir [Novembre]

dario.mandir_removethis@zd.tel.hr (Dario Mandir [Novembre]) wrote:
>>Ako nesto nije jasno, pitaj. :)
>>
>Sve jasno , hvala na ovako iscrpnome objasnjenju :)

Nema frke. :)

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

"Devarsi Muni dasa" wrote:
>claim that Srila Prabhupada was a fraud, imply that you are the
>reincarnation of Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaja (!)

You are simply too stupid to talk to.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 07:39:18 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>
>> and when I go to a bookstore and ask
>>if they have a translation of Gita, I'm usually told that they just
>>have "that Hare Krishna trash from Prabhupada", and none of the real
>>translations. So I'm not alone in my estimates. But I seriously
>>dislike when my words are distorted. If you want to qoute my
>>defamation of Prabhupada, just ask me and quote, I'll be happy to
>>provide. But don't misquote me because that makes me irritated. OK?
>
>I suggest you try some other bookstores, because the ones you went
>truly suck, and the intendants didn't know what they were talking
>about. The fact is that Srila Prabhupada's translation of the Bhagavad
>Gita is the only one authorized. It is all the other translations that
>suck because they are not authorized in parampara.

What is an authorized translation? In my book, a translation of a holy
text is accurate if several conditions are fulfilled: that the
translator is well versed in the languages, both source and target,
and that he knows the meaning of the text - that is possible only with
personal experience. I have seen several good translations of the Gita
(I speak only of the Croatian versions, I unfortunately don't have the
English versions with me) - the best one was done by Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi, but there are unfortunately only 6 chapters translated. His
comments are good, although biased (he keeps pointing out the presence
of his TM technique, although he's the only one who can see it there),
but the translation is simply great, because it carries the depth of
the original text (one gets the feeling for the original after reading
several slightly different translations). He added things in the
comment, but not in the translation. Prabhupada, unfortunately,
incorporated his interpretation into the translation, and that
completely blurred the text. Furthermore, his translation is "flat",
it lacks the poetic component of the other translations. One good, but
unfortunately partial translation is that of Prof. Dr. Mislav Jezic,
in the translation of Mahabharata. Due to the volume of everything he
shortened it significantly, but the parts that he translated are
excellent, one can just feel the bliss and power of the words, they
are brilliant and sparkling, pure mantras of power. That's the first
translation that I've ever read, and I still remember it as the most
remarkable. There's another Croatian translation, made by Rade Sibila,
Maharishi's disciple; he translated all 18 chapters, and did a nice
job; his translation is less beautiful compared to Maharishi and Dr.
Jezic, it lacks a bit of the brilliance, but it's still very good.
I've seen another Croatian translation by some Robotic guy, but that
one is so bad that it's difficult to imagine what it has in common
with Gita.
Prabhupada's translation is mostly accurate, in the basic meanings of
the words, with some gross distortions, but that is not the main
problem. The problem is the lack of depth, of the poetic range, of
everything. It's flat; it's not a poem, it's written like a handbook.
Since I'm accustomed to the poetic translations like Maharishi's, that
fact alone is enough for me to just forget Prabhupada's version in any
serious discussion about Gita. Also, it lacks the "vibe" of the
original, it lacks divinity. In Prabhupada's version, Krsna and Arjuna
sound "ordinary", they lack both humanity and divinity, they sound
completely unimpressive. I sincerely hope that you read Maharishi's
translation of the first 6 chapters and see what I mean. I have heard
that other great yogis have made translations of their own, and I'm
looking forward to obtaining them as soon as possible.
The biggest problem with the translations of Gita is that it's a
multi-layered material, which is a fact that most translators don't
have in mind; Krsna speaks from two positions, from the position of
atman/brahman, which is the universal and absolute Self in everything,
and from the position of Isvara, the Highest Lord. Most translations
force only one perspective, and they either translate purusa as
brahman and relativize the position of Krsna as purusottama, or they
force the Isvara aspect over all proportions, and translate brahman as
Krsna or something. Sankaracarya was very wise, he didn't mix things.
He used to say that brahman is the supreme reality and the foundation
of everything, and that Vasudeva is the goal of all worship, leaving
it to the others to argue about what he meant. He saw no contradiction
because there isn't any. It's unfortunate that I know so little of
Caitanya, because it seems to me that he, too, saw no contradiction,
and he knew how to unite those two aspects, having no problem with
simultaneous unity and division.
The biggest problem is that some schools see the term "relative" as
the spitting mark, something inferior, some sort of an illusion. It is
not, there is a huge difference between being relative an being in
illusion or being made of illusion. For instance, Krsna and Puranjana
are in essence both atman/brahman, in the perspective of the Absolute,
but in the relative perspective Krsna is the highest Lord, and
Puranjana is a lowlife scum.
Also, the relationship between an individual person and God is in the
relative sphere of existence - because it is a relationship, and
relative is the sphere of relationships, philosophically speaking. In
the absolute perspective, everything is brahman, sat-cit-ananda. That
sat-cit-ananda is manifested through the relative, and God (Isvara) is
the full embodiment of sat-cit-ananda.
When we don't know that there are two different perspectives, we can
falsely conclude that when someone talks from the position of
atman/brahman ("I am the only reality"), that he claims to be Isvara;
that is not true. It's a much more complex issue and it should be
approached with great care.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 21:25:56 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>
>You get credits for that one, Danijel. Nice work. Very much to the
>point. That you have defended Srila Prabhupada against his enemies
>shows that you are a vaishnava at heart. You may not even realize it
>yourself. You may still think that Prabhupada's position is relative,
>but you have defended his good name, and that is to your eternal
>credit despite whatever else you may have to say about him.

:) Don't get too carried away with the praise, you might still end up
flaming me in a day or two. :) The fact is that I'm completely
outraged by the mockery that idiot Puranjana (? or whoever stands
behind PADA) makes of everything. If he attacks something, then it's
probably good.
What he writes is several levels below basic human decency, and I know
for sure from what I have read of Prabhupada's texts that Puranjana is
practically his prototype of a bad guy: he's driven by ego, he's
arrogant, abusive, he lies and makes up false stories, and tries to
create confusion just to be able to benefit from chaos. He doesn't
create anything positive, he doesn't reflect any divine qualities, and
instead he just spills venom. He magnifies the negative and thrives on
it. Basically, I had enough of him.

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

orlic@eskola.hfd.hr (Damir Orlic) wrote:

>>U tome i jest zabluda. Problem relativnosti nije ljepota, nego
>>prolaznost. Ljepota kao takva je Bozanska kvaliteta, bez obzira na
>>ostalo, sto moze biti ovakvo ili onakvo. Je li to sto zrnje dolazi
>>zajedno s pljevom znak da treba sve baciti, ili da treba odvojiti
>>pljevu od zrnja?
>
>A tko kaze da pljevu i zrnje treba odvajati? ;))))

A cuj, mozda ne treba ni guzicu brisati, kaj znas.

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

pada@pon.net wrote:
>As for Daniel thinking that TKG (the founder father of the cult
>enforced ritualistic worship of homosexual pedophiles, which caused
>mass molestation of children and their being starved and beaten as
>well, and the murder of dissidents) sounds like a "nice guy," that
>sums up where his brain is at.

If you want to be accurate, you'll have to admit that the "founder
father of the cult enforced ritualistic worship of homosexual
pedophiles, which caused mass molestation of children and their being
starved and beaten as well, and the murder of dissidents" is
Prabhupada, not Tamala Krsna. He was the one who founded everything,
taught them all they knew, and when he died, they just tried to follow
his instructions, the way they understood them. But that is a
conclusion you are trying to avoid, it seems, because you want to
capitalize on Prabhupada and attack his senior students, so that if
some revolution ever happens in ISKCON, you could end up on top, or
something. But who would want a pathetic asshole like you in a
position of power? You desire only power over people, not power over
yourself, and that makes you especially pitiful. If you spent half the
time you spend on defaming people every day, on some creative thing,
like meditation on Krsna, you would probably be a great saint by now.
But noooo, you're above that stuff, there are more important things to
do, like spit on Tamala Krsna, Prabhupada's most intimate disciple and
a personal secretary. Doesn't your small brain realize the obvious
fact that this is a direct attack on Prabhupada?

And of course, you won't quote that in your reply, you'll just go on
rambling like a total lunatic that you are.

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

"Devarsi Muni dasa" wrote:
>Prabhupada was in hell, and that Srila Prabhupada was his junior disciple,

Would you just stop misquoting me?? You start sounding like
that brain dead PADA creature. Let me rephrase my words for you.
"If a junior disciple of mine went to America after my death, and
founded a cult marginally based on me, that would sound very similar
to what Prabhupada did".

The analogy was that Prabhupada was a junior disciple of
Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, whom he saw a couple of times during ten or
so years, unlike the other disciples who were with him all the time.
Yet Prabhupada, when questioned by them later, told his students to
ignore the Gaudiya Math. I made an analogy to illustrate that, but
judging by your lack of understanding, I should have probably writen
in color, with capital letters. Did you finally get it? I don't like
Prabhupada, his translations suck and when I go to a bookstore and ask
if they have a translation of Gita, I'm usually told that they just
have "that Hare Krishna trash from Prabhupada", and none of the real
translations. So I'm not alone in my estimates. But I seriously
dislike when my words are distorted. If you want to qoute my
defamation of Prabhupada, just ask me and quote, I'll be happy to
provide. But don't misquote me because that makes me irritated. OK?

As a disclaimer, it must be said that although I loathe Prabhupada's
literary work, I respect his human qualities, he was mostly blowing
steam in his books, and in reality he was probably much nicer, and he
also had a good intuition.

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

orlic@eskola.hfd.hr (Damir Orlic) wrote:
>Osim toga govoriti o aspolutnoj ljepoti znaci biti iznad relativnoga
>svijeta, a toliko visoko jos nisam, pa ono sto sam pisao pisao sam s
>relativne razine. Ljepota je na relativnoj razini relativna i
>prolazna.

U tome i jest zabluda. Problem relativnosti nije ljepota, nego
prolaznost. Ljepota kao takva je Bozanska kvaliteta, bez obzira na
ostalo, sto moze biti ovakvo ili onakvo. Je li to sto zrnje dolazi
zajedno s pljevom znak da treba sve baciti, ili da treba odvojiti
pljevu od zrnja?

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