"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Vis, uopce se ne bih cudio ako ga svrstava pod yogu. Ima toliko plugin-ova
>za AT da je vec tesko reci zadire li to u yogu ili je odvojen.
>A i yoga je pojam od sjedenja na cavlima preko rastezanja u spagu do
>sjedinjenja s Bogom intezivnom meditacijom. Da ne bi bilo daljnjeg
>nesporazuma yoga za mene je ova treca varijanta a AT "prekapcanje" u
>autogeno stanje( ulazak u podsvjest ) autosugestijom topline i tezine bez
>plugin-ova.

AT moze biti jako dobar uvod za dublje meditativne pristupe, bas zbog
svoje jednostavnosti, i efikasnosti u smirivanju tijela i nizih
aspekata uma. Kad dodje do takvog smirenja, onda mozes poceti raditi
nesto stvarno pametno. Zato AT ne treba gledati kao inferiornu
tehniku, bolje ga je gledati kao moguci uvod u nesto bolje.

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

X-Ftn-To: Miroslav Ambrus Kis

Miroslav.Ambrus.Kis@sprint.pub.hr (Miroslav Ambrus Kis) wrote:
> DT> Mislim da uopce nema paradoksa. Naime prije izbora odredjene staze
> DT> postojat ce sumnja, postojat ce dvojba i postojat ce kolebanje, ali
> DT> uoci kako je Isus nosio svoj kriz nakon sto je donio odluku - tada je
> DT> svakog traga dvojbe i kolebanja nestalo.
>
>Mislis, on je TE NOCI u Getsemaniji tek POSTAO avatar?
>Ili da budem precizniji: sav njegov zivot PRIJE TOGA nije bio zivot avatara?

Ne, mislim da je to pogresno gledanje. Htio sam reci da treba odvojeno
promatrati proces koji vodi do odluke, samu odluku, te njene
posljedice. Avatara ne treba gledati niti kao samo Boga, niti kao samo
covjeka, avatara treba gledati kao covjeka u kojem Bozanska priroda
odnosi prevagu nad ljudskom, a to je s Isusom slucaj. Njegova ljudska
priroda je tu, ona ima pravo glasa, i ona u Getsemaniji moli za
postedu od muke i smrti, ali Bozanska priroda odnosi prevlast. Ako se
tako gleda, onda uopce nema paradoksa niti spornih pitanja.

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>1
>>That was the biggest bag of garbage I have read here on this
>>newsgroup.
>
From Bhagavatam's point of view, blasphemy of vedic literature and
>pure devotees is to be condemned.

Everything can be called blasphemy, if it threatens your holy
illusions. I saw no blasphemy, I saw reason, and a mind far more
subtle than yours.

>It was not ad-hominem, but
>recommened response TO ANANDA

It was rude, besides being false.

>not to you so the rest of your message
>is also irrelevant to the point.

It doesn't matter if it's to me or to the other participants, because
I quoted it to demonstrate your arrogance and rudeness.

>>2
>>People who cannot understand
>>it should keep their mouths shut or find someone who does understand
>>it.
>
>This is true. You have not read the Bhagavatam so how do you know
>that it is NOT a superior explanation of the objective reality?

I repeat, how do you know what I did or did not read? I made no
conclusive statement in that regard. How do you know that _you_ have
read SB? You have obviously read Prabhupada's translation, which is so
lousy that I had to translate the slokas myself from the translation
of the individual words, in order to get what Vyasa actually _did_
say. Prabhupada rapes the holy scriptures with his interpretations, he
for instance translates brahman as the supreme person, he translates
Isvara as Krsna, he translates "loka" as "planet", etc. Because of my
knowledge of that fact, I don't know if I read SB or not, I read
something that seems to be a lousy translation of it, with a
disasterous comment. Prabhupada's comments and translations are so
bad, that I thought that Bhagavad-gita was a scripture of great depth,
until I read his version of it, the Gita as it is not. From his
version, I could only get the impression that Krsna and Arjuna are
both morons from some cult. Thank God that there are other
translations that are consistent with the sanskrt original (and I know
what is consistent with sanskrt, because there are translations of the
individual words, and I've read enough competent translations of
sanskrt literature such as Mahabharata, Gita, Upanisads and
Sankaracarya's texts to understand how it works. Unfortunately I don't
know sanskrt well enough to translate things myself, or read from the
originals).
Some of my friends who've read Prabhupada's translations were also
apalled by the amount of sectarian bullshit forced upon the original
text. Are you happy now?

>Most of my remarks were to counter your initiated ad-hominem. Go back
>and read it yourself :)

Most of everything you write is rude and arrogant, and that tells
everything about you as a person.

>>Well, in conflict with such living evidence of a superior process, I
>>have no other option but to back out.
>
>But which part of the Bhagavatam did you try?

When you tell me who I am, and address me as such, I'll tell you.

>Which part did you read?

Probably everything, but I would really like to get my hands on some
good, non-Prabhupada English translation, and read the real thing.

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>>vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>>You SPECULATE that Bhagavatam is inferior ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE NEVER READ
>>>IT OR TRIED THE PROCESS.
>
>>Who told you that?
>
>Then why are you arguing when I say the Bhagavatam is the Absolute
>Truth?

It's because you lack the basic idea about what a holy scripture is,
and how it should be approached. That misconception of yours leads to
exactly the same problems as ones encountered in the protestant
Christian circles, where Bible is seen as the word of God, it is
attributed with the absolute relevance and everything should be seen
in the light of the Bible. I can think that Bible is a holy scripture
of great spiritual value, and at the same time argue with their
misconception of its nature.

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>>The computer I'm working at right now is the evidence that the science...
>
>Again, let me repeat my point again.

You can repeat a lie ten times, it won't become the truth.

>If you hypothesize B for
>explaining phenomena A, it does not prove B no matter what the
>results.

Obviously, you haven't read what I wrote about the scientific method,
so I'll repeat and rephrase.

-First you choose a field of observation

-Then you perform the initial observation, and form a hypothesis to
explain the observation. That is the inductive part of the method.

-Based on the hypothesis as a basic premise, you make a prediction.
That is the deductive part of the method.

-To test the accuracy of the prediction, you make observations and
compare the results to the prediction.

-If the theory is capable of predicting the reality, it is accepted as
valid. If not, it is obviously false because it is not in alignment
with the reality.

So, it's not what Prabhupada thought it is, and what you just repeat
like a parrot. It's something far more sophisticated and accurate.
Prabhupada thought that scientific method could be simplified and
ridiculed by examples based on his understanding of the induction. But
it's not all, the science uses the hypothesis obtained by induction,
and then uses it as a premise in deduction to verify its validity.
Very, very competent minds have been developing the method for
centuries, and its results are excellent.

>I can say Lord Krsna is giving the intelligence to the
>scientists to build the computer. So this new explanation C is also
>compatible with data A.

No, actually it is not compatible with anything, it can be compatible
only with your conception of how computers are made, but accidentally
I have a brother who repaired my monitor when some transistors went
bye-bye, and I know that maybe Krsna did give him "intelligence" to do
it, but I also know how he learned to do it, it took him years of
training, learning about the electronic parts available on the market
and their performance, as well as maths and other stuff. For you maybe
it's some magic that happens somewhere, but for me it's more
down-to-earth, because my friends are mostly engineers and hackers, I
move in those circles, and I don't need deus ex machina to explain
their skill. It's pure science, and its application to the specific
field. In some cases, my brother for instance, science turns to art;
the CD player, amplifier and the speakers he made are something that
sounds so wonderful, that nobody who has ever listened to it has heard
anything better anywhere. It is partially his spirit in the equipment,
but mostly it is his knowledge and precision, and choice of the high
quality parts.

>Got it? This is the 3rd time I am explaining
>this to you.

You can explain your misconceptions as many times as you like, but
that won't change things a bit.

>Now from this, you have find out which is the superior model C or B?

Occam's Razor.

>I am saying that by following the methods of Krsna consciousness, the
>Absolute Truth is revealed to us.

And why doesn't that include the science?

>This includes how the scientists
>are coming out with their theories.

That would make sense, if I didn't know how you see science and how
you attempt to force it into your limited conceptions.

>So don't think we miss out on
>anything. Also, you should note that the computers have been UPDATING
>ever since they came out which PROVES that you don't have the correct
>explanation for the phonemon which you are making by trial-and-error.

:))))
Computers have been improved because it's how science applied to the
engineering works. First you understand the basics and you make
something simple. Then you learn from the process and improve your
initial concepts. Then you try again and improve. That's why today's
cars are better than Ford model T. That's why today's pocket
calculators are more powerful than the best computers from the 40's.
It's called the learning curve. It's the reason why science is so
effective, because it adapts and learns - it is based on the reality.

>>Of course I am. I can't explain that stuff to a 3 yr old, ...
>
>ad-hominem attacks being ignored.

Ad hominem has to be applied if the human factor becomes limiting in
the process of understanding, which is the case with you. You
obviously overestimated the abilities of your mind, and that creates
the most absurd situations where I demonstrate something and you don't
understand the proof, and where you state something that's full of
holes, and you don't even understand that you're making a flawed
statement. I don't see much sense in discussing with an inferior mind,
because it makes me get feel too good about my own mental
capabilities, which isn't healthy, I prefer talking to the folks
smarter than myself, that's how I learn things. Unfortunately from the
other messages posted here, I think that you're not some strange
exception, and that your flawed logic (I don't even think it's yours,
it's Prabhupada's, he made all those faulty statements before and
you're just repeating it because if you're not in agreement with them,
your world will end) is some sort of a rule here.

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>You SPECULATE that Bhagavatam is inferior ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE NEVER READ
>IT OR TRIED THE PROCESS.

Who told you that?

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>OK, give me a better method for calculating the mass of a spaceship
>>traveling at 97% c, and calculating the timespace deviations if it
>>passes 23 AU from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm sure that
>>your scripture would give me better data than the scientific physics.
>>Get a life.
>
>Prove that your method of calculating the mass at 97% c is valid. Why
>should I take your blind words? First you have not shown the main
>point of discussion that the distances to the planets is accurate.

Sorry, but I don't think that anyone can prove anything to a person
who has invested his entire existence in being right.

>I very much doubt you have proof for any of the physics, chemistry, or
>medical books given your lack of showing even the distance to the
>planets. You just keep quoting "It has been done." Anyone can say
>that. It takes more than a lifetime to even begin to prove all these
>experiments not to mention all the equipment.

The computer I'm working at right now is the evidence that the science
works. What more do you need? It is based on the scientific knowledge,
that knowledge is applied to the matter and it produces results. If it
was as unreliable and unpredictable as you claim, it simply wouldn't
work. Do you know how a DSP in my modem is able to transfer data on
sustained 33600 bps? It's extremely complex maths, and I can't prove
any of it. However, the modem works. I even know some guys who
understand the portware (the admins of some big servers, for example).
If they tried to explain it to me, I would probably understand half of
it, if they skip Mr. Fourier in the process, but _they_ understand it,
they make the equipment work, I just pay the bills. In order to be
able to understand the proof, you've got to have a mind powerful
enough. People don't study that stuff for years because they are
stupid, but because it's difficult to learn, it's very demanding to
understand. It can't be explained just like that, if it could be, then
years of training and education would be obsolete.

>>No, I can not because you are too ignorant and incompetent to..
>
>Backing out.

Of course I am. I can't explain that stuff to a 3 yr old, and I can't
explain it to you, because you don't have the basics, and you are
totally determined to reject everything I would say, so I'll just
leave you to your holy ignorance.

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

X-Ftn-To: Devarsi Muni dasa

"Devarsi Muni dasa" wrote:

>Danijel Turina wrote in message ...
>>vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>
>>>Yes, the Absolute can reveal Himself to the devotee. It's my own
>>>experience.
>>
>>I very much doubt it, judging on your lack of basic human qualities.
>
>Interesting thread, until this point when Danijel resorts to an ad hominum
>attack, losing whatever credibility he still had.

:)))))))))))))))))) LOL :)))

>>>Speak for yourself. I know my process works.
>>
>>I think that it doesn't, and I have you as living evidence.
>
>The evidence shows that Virender has maintained his calm and rational
>manner, even in the face of personal insults, while Danijel has been reduced
>to making personal attacks when his logic was not powerful enough to defeat
>Virender's superior logic.
>
>Virender has demonstrated the flaws in Danijel's argument, simultaneously
>demonstrating his superior character and conduct. Virender is clearly the
>living evidence. He is presenting a superior process.
>
>Once again, Danijel should now acknowledge that he has lost this debate, and
>withdraw graciously.

:))))))))))))))))))))))))
Let me refresh your memory a bit, with the excerpts from the complete
works of Virender Dayal:
--------
1
That was the biggest bag of garbage I have read here on this
newsgroup.

2
People who cannot understand
it should keep their mouths shut or find someone who does understand
it.

3
[rest of the garbage deleted]

4
You need to relearn or keep your mouth shut.

5
Bhagavatam is science, but since you have not read it, keep your mouth
shut.

6
You don't know anything, but don't say nobody else does.
-------

Well, in conflict with such living evidence of a superior process, I
have no other option but to back out.

It's interesting how you hare krishna guys are so sensitive to the
method of discussion that is your primary weapon, meaning ad hominem
attacks. The first twenty or thirty times I just ignored it, but I
learned the rules of the game. Soon I'll be just like one of you, if I
don't quit while I'm still ahead.

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

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>> A to da ces se sutra roditi kao kornjaca ili bumbar,ja te osobno molim da
>> mi javis kada se to dogodi/tebi ili nekom drugom/,jer me silno zanima kako
>> to izgleda.
>> Ljudi moji nemojmo u svasta vjerovati!
>
>U Giti lijepo pise da u slijedecoj inkarnaciji dobivas ono tijelo koje ce ti
>najbolje omoguciti da ozivis stanje svijesti koje si dosegao za zivota.Ako
>se tebi motaju bumbari po glavi i volio bi se ponasati ko bumbar nemoj se
>cuditi kad se probudis sa krilima jer je to bila tvoja zelja koju je Bog
>ispunio.

Ma daj molim Te nemoj pricati pizdarije. Pise da ces u iducoj
inkarnaciji dobiti ono tijelo koje omogucuje nastavak onoga sto si u
ovom zivotu zapoceo; da bi uopce degenerirao ispod ljudske forme,
morao bi koristiti samo zivotinjske elemente licnosti, ugasiti sve
ljudske, i uopce nemati nikakve potrebe za ljudskim elementima. Da bi
degenerirao do razine bumbara, nije dovoljno da Ti se po glavi vrzmaju
bumbari, nego da Ti stanje svijesti jednog bumbara bude normalno, a
nesto toliko nisko si uopce ne mozes zamisliti kao moguce. Dakle
ljudi, dajte nemojte pricati gluposti o toj reinkarnaciji, to fakat
postaje smijesno. Izuzetno je rijetka situacija da se covjek rodi u
zivotinjskom tijelu, a to se desava samo ljudima za koje vec na prvi
pogled mozes ustanoviti da su dvonozne bezrepe zivotinje.

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

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>>It's a standard deduction vs. induction argument, and induction
>>already won so it's actually nothing to discuss; induction goes from...
>
>Induction is hypothetical. Deduction should be accepted.

:)))) Have you ever read Francis Bacon or William Occam? They are the
guys who invented the scientific method as we know it. The deduction
was used in the dark ages, and was called the scholastics. It was an
axiomatic system based on the Bible. Another such system was also used
at the same time by the Moslems, and was based on the Koran. Those
systems were fruitless and prevented any growth, and the science with
the inductive method, which actually gives practical results, replaced
the deductive method. The system based on a scripture was replaced by
a system based on the reality.

>If I
>observe 200 people with blue eyes, does that mean everyone has blue
>eyes.

No, that means that in the observed group the incidence of people with
blue eyes is 100%.

>>So what? That would be a problem if there was a better method around,
>>but there is not.
>
>There is. You just don't know it.

OK, give me a better method for calculating the mass of a spaceship
traveling at 97% c, and calculating the timespace deviations if it
passes 23 AU from the event horizon of a black hole. I'm sure that
your scripture would give me better data than the scientific physics.
Get a life.

>>I already explained what _is_ the scientific method, I don't intend to
>>repeat.
>
>I already told you I have not observed all the phenomena in the
>physics book or chemistry book; so I have no reason to accept it
>blindly unless you prove everything to me.

I did enough experiments to prove the basic principles; if I didn't do
the experiments, I wasn't calm until I could understand how the
principle could be proven, and could analyze the proof. If you think I
accepted things blindly, you found yourself a wrong guy. But I'm not a
scientist. I just understand the principles of science well enough,
because of my former interests in physics and other scientific
branches. You somehow projected all of your hated archetypes of the
atheistic scientists on me, which makes me laugh, and I like yanking
your chains a bit, just to make you aware of them.

>>And that is supposed to be the scientific method?
>
>Yes, the Absolute can reveal Himself to the devotee. It's my own
>experience.

I very much doubt it, judging on your lack of basic human qualities.

>>And your method of verification is...?
>>How do you verify that what is written in SB, actually happened? How
>>do you prove that Pariksit really existed?
>
>As I said, Krsna can reveal to His devotees according to their
>surrender, but you have never tried the process nor read the process.

If the process would result in me becoming more like yourself, I
wouldn't dream of trying it.

>>It is not the reality. It just tries to explain what happens in some
>>cases, and it does it better than any alternative theory.
>
>You don't know admit it. You are BLINDLY following a bunch of books
>claiming to have proven everything but constantly changing and
>updating.

No, that's what you're doing, I'm not from that movie. I understood
the principles from the scientific texts, I didn't just believe it,
especially not blindly. I quit blind belief when I was 7 yrs old.

>>Science does not consist of quoting the authorities, that was done in
>>the dark ages and abandoned, since it resulted in total collapse...
>
>Okay, stop quoting that it's been proven and give me the proof so I
>can do it myself. Unfortunately, you cannot

No, I can not because you are too ignorant and incompetent to do
anything that would have any scientific merit. How could you prove
anything when you lack the understanding of the theory? That's
impossible. You're the one doomed to the sphere of blind belief,
because you are not capable of understanding the evidence.
Read Carl Sagan's "Contact". In it, there's a similar situation
described, an argument between Christian fanatics and topmost
physicists.

>because there are
>thousands and thousands of experiments that there isn't enough time to
>do them or verify them.

That's what scientific community is for. Scientists believe each
other; if they don't, they can choose to repeat and verify the
experiments. There are strict merits for publication of the results in
scientific magazines. One scientist doesn't have to _prove_
everything, he has to understand the basic principle that has been
proved by the others, and give his contribution. His contribution is
based on the work of all the others, and proves its validity by its
existence - a scientist who collides protons and antiprotons in an
accelerator is giving his small contribution, but his contribution is
the evidence that electronics works, that the engineers who built the
accelerator knew what they were doing, it proves that Einstein was
right, because if he wasn't, he couldn't grow a particle's mass by
inducing the energy from the EM field into it; it proves many things,
that scientist isn't blindly following, his work is the rock-solid
evidence that everything in science is true, that it works, that it is
based on the real world of facts, and that he can rely on it 100%.
That's what the facts are, and if you can't live with them, I'm sorry
for you and the God you believe in, because it is not the God I know.
Accelerators can't threaten the God I know, because they are built
upon him, founded upon him and maintained by him. Everything the
science really proved as fact is the fact my God created and maintains
in his existence, and he can be reached through all those things. I
pity the small gods who live in the scriptures, and who are threatened
by the existence of the protons.

>>You are following something that you think will bring you somewhere,
>>but it doesn't,...
>
>Speak for yourself. I know my process works.

I think that it doesn't, and I have you as living evidence.

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