X-Ftn-To: Ante Bagaric

Ante Bagaric wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote:
>
>> Opceniti feeling koji dobijem kad citam taj clanak nije napunjen
>> histericnim astralom nego sve izgleda prilicno normalno. Recimo, Ti mi
>
>Ne znam, cudi me to kod tebe.
>Kako sad to, imamo neki clanak koji govori o necemu tako fantasticnom kao
>sto su izvanzemaljska inteligencija, a da pritom zvuci "normalno". Doduse,

Najbolje bi bilo da imam sasvim iste stavove kao i Ti, pa bi mi onda
mogao bezrezervno aplaudirati na mudrosti.

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

ananda@coastnet.com (Ananda das) wrote:
>Srimati Madhusudani Radha dasi prabhu (Mill Valley, Calif.) comments on
>the lamentable tendency of some Vaishnavas to fixate on unimportant
>minutiae as if the whole of our philosophical outlook on life and our
>relationship with Sri Krsna and our spiritual masters depended on it:


I must compliment you on the wisest and clearest post that I have read
in a long, long time. I agree with you completely and it makes me very
glad to see the balance in your logic. Again, you have my most sincere
compliments and best wishes.

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

soybean2k@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hare Krsna Danijel,
>
>You argue quite well. It is a pleasure to read what you write.

Thanks. :)

>I still
>disagree strenuously with you, though even this early in
>the discussion I despair of our seeing eye-to-eye on this
>one -- though I am no less willing to bat ideas back and
>forth for all that; as I say, it's very much a pleasure to
>talk about if/how mantra works, under what conditions it
>might or mightn't work, and so forth.

It's nice to exchange arguments with someone who can use the proper
logical machinery in reasoning; however, I think that some of your
basic premises are flawed, although the logic based on them is
correct, and that makes your point weak. Let's just play with
arguments and see where it leads, we might find out something of
interest. :)

>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>> OK, with the example of a computer, I have to agree with that, but
>> what if we use some living being capable of speech without
>> understanding, for instance a parrot or a mina-bird? A parrot can
>> memorize and repeat mahamantra. Since you said that participation of
>> the subject in the process of chanting is irrelevant, it is logical to
>> assume that a parrot would benefit from chanting, because, as you
>> said, chanting alone counts.
>
>I don't think you're going to like my answer, because it's rather
>fundamentalist -- you may have noted that the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition
>is essentially one of fundamentalism,

Yes, that is obvious, because it is based on the foundation of
scriptures and authorities and comments which are rather inflexible,
and that is the weak point of the system. If the system isn't relaxed
enough to allow flexibility, it means that it isn't very secure in its
roots. The best system, IMHO, would be the one that can rely on the
observation of the reality alone, like mathematics, or physics. In
those systems you don't have to accept any authorities or scriptures,
you don't even have to read the books: if your mind is powerful
enough, you can remake the entire system from scratch just by mere
observation and analysis. That's what I'm trying to make, a system
that will be so simple that it would be a mere extension of the nature
itself, something you could even forget completely, and re-invent just
by observing the reality. No dogma, no sastra, nothing. Such system
would really reflect God's intent, because every system that hopes to
explain God must be simple, clear and in agreement with nature.
Without vedic astronomy and similar BS. :)

>albeit one free from the
>hateful, self-serving tendencies with which one usually associates
>the word "fundamentalist."

Seeing the mentality in this NG, this is a highly disputable
assumption. :)

>In any case, we have it on solid evidence
>that yes, a parrot's prayers have beneficial effect for the parrot --
>said evidence being scriptural, not empirical, in the form of Srila
>Krsnadasa Kaviraja's "Sri Suka-sari-stava," or "The Parrot's Prayers."

I would be inclined to put that in the poetry department, not the
science department; and beside that, we still have a basic problem
that we didn't even touch, and that is the lack of the objectively
measurable results. If there are no actual results of the method, then
the entire thing falls in the same group with the emperor's new
clothes for this winter; if vaisnavas can tell that their method
works, although they don't feel anything special, and although there
is no visible progress, then they have a problem when they face a
"born again Christian" who is "saved by the mercy of Christ", who also
has no symptoms of being saved, but quotes the Bible saying that he'll
be saved after death. What can you do with that statement? Nothing,
you can either believe it or reject it, but you can't prove it. I am
inclined to drop all such statements altogether, in spite of the risk
of making a mistake somewhere. I think it is safer to rely on the
firm, visible symptoms and results, and go from there to the
intangible field of experience. In order for me to believe that a
system produces intangible results, it must also produce tangible
results, in form of people who display above average human qualities.
If they are kinder, nicer, wiser and more loving and intuitive in
their normal daily functioning, I'll be more inclined to accept their
claims about the intangible reality. Without that criterion, we can
get into a situation where a piece of human garbage can make all sorts
of religious claims, and we can only take his word for it, nothing
more, because some scripture says something. This doesn't seem to be a
healthy approach to the matter of spirituality. Transcending the lower
realms of existence can never mean that you become worse than
ordinary, you're supposed to become better. If improvement can't be
measured anywhere, then it is highly unlikely to be an effective
method.

>It is the contention of Caitanya's movement that, in Kali-Yuga at least,
>the human condition is so degraded that to ask a human being to experience
>the subtle mellows of bhakti is like asking a door to sing "Mountain
>Greenery." It's just not going to happen.

But it must. That is the goal, and it must be attained. There must be
no compromise. What is Kali-yuga to a yogi? Just more external
problems, and such problems can be a powerful motive for
transcendence. One must be determined to achieve the highest goal and
not find all sorts of excuses, yuga this or that. Ideal circumstances
will never happen, and the determined person will find God even in
deepest hell. God's mercy is greater than all the obstacles, and all
obstacles can be overcome, if there is will for liberation, if there
is a true desire for God.
A saint's student once asked impatiently: "guruji, when will I finally
see God?". The saint said nothing. The next day, when they were
bathing in the river, the saint firmly grabbed the student and
submerged his head under water, and held him there until he was almost
dead. Then he took him out. "How much did you desire air while you
were down there, my child?", he asked. "Enormously!", the student
answered, caughing. "There you have it", said the saint, "when you
will desire God as much, then you will surely attain him".

That is the key to enlightenment. Everything else is just lame excuse.

>This is why Srila Prabhupada
>looked askance at devotees who liked to shout and roll around on the
>floor during kirtana -- sure, for one who has truly gotten the connection,
>such a response would be quite natural, but how likely are we in the
>present age to slough off our numberless connections to the material?
>Not very. The best we can do is imitate those who have done so and
>linked-up: who have actually practiced yoga. And so that's what we do --
>we imitate. We are told by scripture and by the most recent authority
>that doing so will get us where we want to go. Whether we feel like
>we're getting there or not is not pertinent to the question.

The problem with that assumption is this: did God create us so that we
could imitate, or did he create us to be original, brilliant and
wonderful? Why is everybody so different? The nature is not about
imitation, it is about evolution, invention and improvement. Imitation
is an escape from one's own dharma, and that is a dangerous choice to
make. One has to be original, one has to grow from God and display
beauty and magnificence in the world. That is the thing to do.

>We are actually making the same point here. What I'm saying is that
>by chanting the mahamantra one makes progress.

In spite of different attempts, I have yet not been assured of that. I
have seen the practitioners of different yogic paths, and the truth is
that really enlightened people are very rare, there doesn't seem to be
a system in the world which could mass-produce saints, although most
systems claim to be capable of that. And within those circles, ISKCON
has probably the worst success ratio, it seems to have no technique at
all, no active compound, nothing, actually forced celibacy seems to
destroy some parts of the energetic systems so there is actually a
deterioration of the condition in most cases. A combination of wicca
and reiki gives far better results and produces very nice people, for
instance. Even those who are expecting the aliens to land look better
than the hare krishna folks. That is a serious problem if one claims
to have the only method that works, and everybody else is a fake.
Practically everybody else has better results - the only group that
has results similar to HK are the "born again" Christians and Jehova's
witnesses.
There is a yogic group here in Croatia (Komaja), older than mine, that
bases its practice partially on sex. I have seen its practitioners in
person, they didn't impress me on some high spiritual standards, but
those people are radiant, sparkling, self-confident, their aura is all
over the place, they are full of energy and loving joy, their actions
are free and spontaneous and they look generally beautiful and OK.
Compared to the hare krishna, who look like dried figs, who are often
angry, spiteful, vindictive, negative and generally unpleasant, well,
there is no comparison, sexual practice obviously works better than
chanting. That turns the vaisnava world upside down, doesn't it?

>One need not feel as
>though one is making progress to be making progress.

That is true. But there it's the question if there _is_ any progress?
One thing is to be unaware of it, the other is its objective
existence.

>So you're right: every action has an equal and opposite reaction,
>just as Newton says. Whether the subject need be aware of it -- at all --
>is the question at hand. Take, for example, a criminal, who has spent
>his entire life stealing food from the poor, not because he was hungry
>but because he is a sociopath, and enjoys harming others. OK. Let's
>say that out of curiosity this individual contracts with himself to
>stop his evil deeds and just chant Hare Krsna for six months. At the
>end of six months, let's imagine (it is difficult to imagine, but let's
>imagine) that he doesn't feel any better -- he itches to get back to
>his old habits. He misses the rush, maybe. I say that his six months
>of abstinence and penitence has an effect on his soul whether he feels
>it at all or not.

The question that will solve our dilemma is simple: _is_ there an
effect, in reality, or is it all a verbal game? The proof of the
pudding is in the eating. Is there any pudding to be eaten?

>This teaching is in accord with what Srila Prabhupada
>has to say about the mahamantra, and about keeping deities of Sri
>Sri Gaura-Nitai or Lord Jagganatha in the household -- that the potency
>of the mantra or of association is so great that the subject's complicity
>or even awareness is by no means required.

If this proves to be true, it deserves further study. But it is
necessary to prove that this effect exists in the first place, or
there is as much sense in believing in is as there is in believing in
the existence of Rahu. :)

>> Basically, yes. If they knew that there is a problem, and they ignored
>> it and displayed indifference to the suffering of other beings, then a
>> karmic lesson is needed to teach them about the nature of suffering.
>> But if they are unaware of the problem, because they haven't yet
>> evolved to a level where there is a problem, there can be no
>> punishment.
>
>This simply isn't true. I live in the midwest -- I can tell someone
>passionately that his eating of pork is noxious to God, but (I have
>it on experience) he'll be at best bemused and at worst angry. He will
>reject the information in favor of satisfying the desires of his tongue.
>And that rejection, that refusal to accept the truth when presented to
>him, means that his behavior is sinful.

I'm much calmer with this, I guess. I would tell someone that he can
survive without meat just fine, and that God loves him enough to let
him kill other beings so that he could survive, and that it will all
be forgiven to him if it is necessary. A nice person will be touched
and stop eating meat because it isn't necessary and it causes
suffering to the other beings that God loves; others are on the level
where it makes very little difference whether one is a carnivore or a
vegetarian. I know some carnivores who are generally very nice people,
nicer than some vegetarians that I know. I don't give it that much
importance. A man is stained by what comes out of him, not by what
comes in. It's not what you eat that determines your value, it's how
you act, what you do, how you treat others. It is good to be a
vegetarian, but it's even better to be a good person. It's best to be
both.

>Hope you're well;

I am, thankyou. :)

>sorry not to have responded to everything you wrote,
>as is the Usenet tradition, but I thought it better just to address
>the essential points.

No problem; I, too, didn't stick to the point rigidly, I preferred to
open some other issues of importance. Seeya! :)

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

"Sundarananda Dasa" wrote:
>Danijel,
>
>Is this is a threat?
>If so, of what kind?

Instructions for "Agent" newsreader:
Select a message from a loser;
Click the right mouse button and select "usenet filters: add kill
filter";
Select adequate options ("skip") and click "OK".
No messages from this loser will bother you again.
I just did that with you. Have a nice day.

>"but Premananda (what an irony that name represents...) will
>decorate my killfile"
>
>SD
>
>

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:53:14 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>Such an understanding can clearly not come from within the
>confinements of the mind. It has to come from Krishna through His
>bona-fida representative in disciplic succession. If it does not, it
>is unscientific and useless for all purposes.

I think your definition of science dates back to the dark ages, to the
times of deduction and authorities. The scientific method is this:
-choose the object of observation
-apply the preliminary observation and from it create a theory
-according to the theory, make an assumption
-test that assumption with further experiments
-if the observation of the results is in alignment with the
predictions, the theory can be accepted until it is in some other way
disproved.

This is the scientific method.

>Please just tell us the truth - that you are a complete fraud -
>because if it is as you say, that you actually guide people in
>spiritual life, these people are in a bad shape, if they think you
>have anything of value to offer. Who would take your vague,
>unenlightened, wishy washy, hodge podge speculations over the pure
>original teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita?

I am who I am. My students know me better than you ever will, and
their confidence in me isn't built on thin air.

>If it weren't tragic it would be hilarious.

It must really hurt to be you. I'm so sorry. I hope someone gives you
all the love and affection that you need.

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

soybean2k@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi Danijel,
>
>Let me say before I go any further that I tend to get a
>little heated in debate but that I mean no disrespect --
>please don't take any snideness on my part as anything
>other than argumentative technique.

I already decided to leave this newsgroup and the VNN forums, because
of the atmosphere that I encountered, which is so abusive and
negative, that I can hardly remember such mentality from anywhere at
all, and I've visited a few dark pits in my time. Nothing to do with
you, but Premananda (what an irony that name represents...) will
decorate my killfile - maybe if I just skip the abusive kind, it'll be
possible for me to keep writing, I don't know.

>That said, you wrote:
>> with a standard Pascal compiler (it shouldn't be difficult to adapt it
>> to other languages, and it works on any platform whatsoever), and
>> enlighten your computer. Just keep it running, and eventually,
>> depending on the CPU and graphics speed (more mantra, more
>> enlightement), it will become conscious of God.
>>
>> If you don't become bored in the meantime.
>>
>> Please, tell me that you were kidding.
>
>No, of course I'm not. A computer doesn't have a soul, wherefore the
>whole question is irrelevant to its operation -- everything it ever
>does is value-neutral as far as its own future is concerned -- it's a
>purely temporal, non-spiritual entity (though its services, like
>those of the typewriter, can be dovetailed in the service of Krsna).

OK, with the example of a computer, I have to agree with that, but
what if we use some living being capable of speech without
understanding, for instance a parrot or a mina-bird? A parrot can
memorize and repeat mahamantra. Since you said that participation of
the subject in the process of chanting is irrelevant, it is logical to
assume that a parrot would benefit from chanting, because, as you
said, chanting alone counts.

>But again, of course I'm not kidding, and given your obvious
>intelligence and education, I'm frankly shocked that you'd think so.
>So you honestly think that the subject's personal
>feeling in response to a treatment is the sole criteria to determine
>whether the treatment is or isn't effective?

But of course it is! It is very strange to even hear a suggestion that
a method that is meant to improve subject's realization can work
without the active participation of the subject, meaning: that you can
be enlightened without feeling it. It is absurd, as much as would be a
statement that would claim that gravity can influence an object and
result in no force to the object. If you drop an apple within a
gravitational field, it will drop, and if you apply a spiritual
technique to an individual, the individual will change. If the
individual doesn't change, there is no active force; if the apple
doesn't fall, there is no gravity. The object of mantra's influence is
supposed to be human spirit, not some inferior association of lower
elements that is so remote from the spirit, so the spirit can remain
without influence. The mantra is supposed to intensify the spiritual
ties - all bhakti methods are pointed to that goal: remembering God,
making spiritual forces stronger and making inferior forces subside.
The subject of the practitioner is the object of the method, and if
there is no change in experience of the practitioner, it simply didn't
work, and inventing a theory that basically says that nothing is
supposed to happen anyway doesn't help much if one wants to become
closer to God and have a direct experience of the Absolute - which is,
basically, what every method of yoga is about.

>Tell me, if I kill
>someone but feel good about it, is it not sinful?

That's a nice paradox. You can defend your family in a war and kill an
enemy. You can feel very good about killing someone in such situation,
because killing actually saved lives. Therefore it isn't sinful,
because it is necessary and inevitable.
But that is not the point.
Is tiger guilty for killing animals? Such actions resonate with the
nature of a tiger. "Karma" for killing animals in an insensitive way
resonates with the state of consciousness specific to the intelligent
carnivore animals such as the big cats. Therefore, the tiger feels
good about killing, and commits no sin. Actually, if a tiger starts
feeling compassion for his victims, it's probably time for him to move
up a ladder in evolution.
Action does not associate karma; actually the condition of the subject
associates karma. It is not what you do, but why, what is the
motivation. If a machine kills ten people, there is no guilty on the
part of the machine, because there is no awareness of the action. The
"karma" in such case is on the purely physical aspect of the 3rd
Newton's law of action and the equal and opposite reaction - a
"Terminator" fires a bullet, and his hand jerks a bit, and that's all
the karma he'll get for firing. If he kills a man, other men might
pursue him and attempt to destroy him - that's also the karma of such
action. But karma in some esoteric meaning doesn't exist in such case
- it can apply only to the person who consciously programmed and armed
the machine, and rendered it capable of killing.
If a child accidentally presses a button that launches a nuclear
warhead, the child will sustain no karma whatsoever, because there was
no sinful intention - and sinful intentions create sinful deeds; it's
not even necessary for the intention to be sinful, but only if there
is an application of free will in any form, there can be talk of
karma, in form of the retribution based on the laws of cause and
effect.
Karma is not "eye for an eye"; the goal of the creation is not to have
everyone's eyes removed, but to make people see more and learn. The
creation reflects the creator, and therefore the nature of God can be
seen in the world, in form of great love and justice that is the
foundation of all that is created. Karma is meant to assist, to help
beings evolve, not to punish blindly. There are no blind forces
whatsoever in this or any other universe, everything is set in motion
and maintained by higher intelligence.

>Are the billions
>of meateaters on the planet blameless because they see nothing wrong
>with their behavior?

Basically, yes. If they knew that there is a problem, and they ignored
it and displayed indifference to the suffering of other beings, then a
karmic lesson is needed to teach them about the nature of suffering.
But if they are unaware of the problem, because they haven't yet
evolved to a level where there is a problem, there can be no
punishment. The tiger doesn't see a problem in eating meat, because
there is no developed compassion. But if there _is_ compassion, and it
is repressed by actions that are done against one's better judgment,
then there is a brick from the sky coming up. :) The more developed a
being, the quicker and clearer the lesson - sometimes the lesson comes
_before_ the action, triggered by a mere decision.

Let me make an example of the effects of karma. There are people on
this newsgroup that wrote insults, lies and other forms of verbal junk
in my direction. They don't know who I am, because their souls are not
yet pure enough for such realization, and therefore they will not be
held karmically responsible for insults pointed in my direction.
However, they will be held responsible for the lack of basic human
decency in behavior with a fellow human being - they will face a
lesson that will eventually make them understand that it is better to
treat others with kindness, than it is to attack and insult the
person. That lesson will be in form that will be just enough to
produce the desired result, nothing more. There is no senseless
punishing, they won't be sent to hell, or given lower birth, nothing.
They'll probably find themselves in a situation where someone violates
their basic human integrity and it will hurt them, they will feel that
this is not right, that this should not be done, and they will change
their wicked ways accordingly. That's how karma really works. It's a
subtle, gentle method of education, not an inert force that blindly
associates causes and effects without any consideration for the actual
subject.

>Is the way a subject feels about his/her actions
>the ultimate criterion with respect to the value of those actions?

No, it is not, not in the shallow meaning of "feeling", but the
essential criteria is the subject's consciousness in its association
with the action. It is the basic factor of karmic association.
Therefore it is said that deeds that come from detachment (dedication
to God) are naiskarman, fruitless, they bring no retributive
association.

>If "yes," especially to the last question -- well, *you* can't be
>serious, can you?

Depending on the question - the program thing was of course a joke
because there is no subject, but if there is a subject without
realization of the meaning of the action, which performs the action,
the results are supposed to happen anyway, you say? Then the parrot is
the real subject for testing your conclusions, because it adheres to
every condition of your logic. :)
Yes, if a subject performs an action, and the action and its result
are remote from the sphere of the subject (meaning: they are in the
sphere of objects), the reaction will follow the action. A child can
press the red button and start the WW3, without any knowledge of the
process. But this same child can not _learn_ without understanding.
Learning, or any other form of personal development isn't remote from
the subject himself, and it is necessary for the subject to
_understand_, and therefore actively participate in the process. Now
you only have to decide if the mantra is some force that is given only
in the exterior sphere of objects, or it is meant to influence the
interior sphere of the subject? To say it bluntly, are you supposed to
know God, or are you just supposed to chant and observe some lower
forces in action, that are remote from your direct experience? If
you're supposed to know God, you're supposed to bloody feel it, or
it's of no use whatsoever. It is the subject that experiences.

>Not unless you're utterly convinced that Wordsworth,
>Keats, and the rest of the nineteenth-century romantics are the greatest
>prophets the world has ever seen. Do yourself a favor: read Aristotle.
>Then read some Hegel. Action has meaning quite apart from anything
>anybody thinks or, God help us, "feels" about it.

I'm afraid you've been reading too many books and they've confused
your basic reasoning skills. :) No hard feelings pal. ;)

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

Sorry guys, nice talking to you all, but I don't think that a serious
conversation is possible in an environment that constantly exposes me
to personal attacks. If someone wants to talk to me, my mail is known
(dturina@geocities.com). Bye.

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

soybean2k@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hare Krsna Danijel,
>
>I think I can answer you: your problem is that you give free
>reign to the idea (an idea unique to the 20th century, with its
>roots in the romantic movement of the 19th century) that
>*how you feel* is the ultimate yardstick. It's not. A person
>chanting the mahamantra has the results, period. Whether
>he/she "feels it" is completely irrelevant.

This, I admit, is an original approach to the subject. :)
Are you saying that the state of the subject is irrelevant to the
effect of mantra? If so, make a great contribution to the world:
compile this program here

program mm;
uses crt;
begin
repeat
writeln('hare krsna hare krsna');
writeln('krsna krsna hare hare');
writeln('hare rama hare rama');
writeln('rama rama hare hare');
writeln;
until keypressed;
end.

with a standard Pascal compiler (it shouldn't be difficult to adapt it
to other languages, and it works on any platform whatsoever), and
enlighten your computer. Just keep it running, and eventually,
depending on the CPU and graphics speed (more mantra, more
enlightement), it will become conscious of God.

If you don't become bored in the meantime.

Please, tell me that you were kidding.

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

"Sundarananda Dasa" wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda Dasa
Member posted 09-19-1999 04:49 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Premananda, why do you think I would ever want to answer anything you
>>have to say? Every time I tried to have a conversation with you, it
>>was completely useless, because you don't know anything and you are
>>extremely arrogant and offensive. But hope is eternal, so I write.
>
>Danijel, it wasn´t I who started being arrogant and offensive.

Yes you were.

>>>And what or who is God ?
>>
>>Acintya nirguna, sat-cit-ananda.
>
>And what does that mean in English?

Beyond gnosis (comprehension is a good translation: God is beyond
comprehension), of no qualities (that which is the foundation of all
qualities has no quality, since all quality is given within it, and
none without it. This is a basic definition of the absolute, as the
uncaused primordial cause and source of all qualities which transcends
them all). Being-consciousness-bliss, one quality which can be
perceived as all three: being that is consciousness and bliss,
consciousness that is being and bliss, bliss that is consciousness and
being, one quality that can be described by all three qualities, and
is perceived in triputibedha, unity of the observer, observation and
the observed, which is nirvikalpa samadhi. Practically, this is how a
relative being can perceive the Absolute and still come back to tell
about it.

>>>I suppose you know all the people in the world, and their hearts, who
>>>are chanting Hare Krishna, and therefore know that the result is
>>>'pathetic'
>>
>>I don't have to, I'm talking to those with pathetic results.
>
>You said that the method of chanting Harinama 'sucks'. Are you changing your
>mind now?

Why should I, I gave solid evidence that was never disproved, and the
evidence says that something is seriously wrong. Either you're doing
it wrong, in which case you'll improve and prove me wrong, or it's
inherently flawed as a method, in which case it should be abandoned
for something better. So far I didn't see deep intuition here,
recognition of deep states of consciousness for which I gave the
clues. You also didn't come even close to reading my motives, or
figuring me out. Therefore I have no reason to suspect that you have
developed any spiritual qualities with your practice.

>>>Absolute truth is never an object, but it is the Supersubject.
>>
>>This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. But with this you
>>just buried dvaita; I didn't know you're from Sankaracarya's lineage.
>>;)
>
>I did not. In fact I did just the opposite!

Let me demonstrate it for you. If the Absolute is the supersubject, it
is the inherent reality of all beings. From that we come to the
conclusion that atman (an individual soul) is in its nature in fact
brahman (the Absolute). Since in Absolute there is no division (since
division implies relation), there is only One Self in all beings, and
its division is due to the relative sphere of existence (maya). In
maya there are upadhis (limitations) projected upon atman which create
the appearance of multitude, like one moon reflects on many cups of
water. The division is not within the moon, which is one, but in the
sphere of reflections. So the true self, atman, is in fact the moon,
not the individual reflections in the cups. Destruction of a cup does
not influence the existence of the moon.
That is practically pure Sankaracarya, plus some Upanisads.

>Singing and reciting Harinama indeed universal. In all religions there are
>songs of praise and prayers in which God´s Name is recited and sung.
>What is important to understand here Danijel is that if one doesn´t practice
>properly the desired result will not be attained.
>If one is committing nama-aparadha one will never chant the Name proper.

You repeat yourself. If one doesn't chant properly one can't be saved,
therefore the power of the method is limited. It is limited to those
who can chant without offense, and since only the enlightened ones can
chant without offence, only they can benefit from it. Therefore we can
safely say that as a method of enlightening the unenlightened the
method is inefficient. Is that what you're saying?
If you, on the contrary, say that its power is unlimited, how come
there are no adequate results?

>Exactly. It´s the same with the chanting of Harinama. You know, everybody
>who becomes a member of ISKCON for example isn´t near enlightenment, there
>are persons who are on different levels of spiritual advancement.

Of course, but it is said that yoga is a process, though which one is
purified; one goes from impurity to purity, from imperfect to perfect.
One can't go from nothing to something, yoga can fan a tiny flame of
mumuksutva (desire of liberation) into a raging fire of enlightenment,
but it can't create the initial flame, it has to come from the person,
it is the basic motivation. Those who have that flame can either find
a good technique and become enlightened, or find a bad technique and
become ruined, or simply stagnate. If a technique is successful in
enlightening those who are qualified (adhikari), then it can be
accepted as good, otherwise it should be renounced. There are
different techniques, for different stages of the path. For someone
who has no desire for liberation (who doesn't feel God within and
doesn't feel a desire to go back to him), a technique must be made
that will evolve the person to the degree of feeling such desire, and
pointing the inner view to God. When the inner view is pointed to God,
and there is a desire to realize God, that person can be called a yoga
student (adhama adhikari). Through practice of connection with God
within, one is purified further, to a degree of an advanced student
(madhyama adhikari), and then to a degree of a realized student
(uttama adhikari). Then as he is completely emerged in God, and all
impurities are annihilated through practice, such person becomes a
master of yoga (yogiraja/yogesvara). Such master can initiate students
and convey his/her vision to them, and thus continue the lineage.
Without such a completely realized master, enlightenment is extremely
difficult and can be attained only by a few.

>(snip)
>
>>>Wrong Danijel.
>>>God´s Name identical with Him and Her.
>>
>>Prove it. If you do, you'll bury your technique, as I did before with
>>the same argument.
>
>AAAAAAAAAAALready have, dude, if you had intelligence you would have
>understood by now.

:))) You just can't see when you're defeated, can you?

>>Do you have any personal experience to back that up with? I hate
>>writing from experience with people who throw quotes from books at me.
>
>I am happy to hear that you are so advanced,

Is that an attempt of irony?

>and I don´t want to discuss my
>experiences with you Danijel.

Then be silent and say not the things you can't back up.

>>>>You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
>>>
>>>Hehehe, I don´t think you understand that sentence Danijel.
>>
>>I don't think you understand humor. You should try it, it's good for
>>health. It's also a quality of those who have a full heart. It just
>>overflows and all the fun comes out. :)
>
>Danijel, that wasn´t nice. If you are so enlightened, why are you being so
>mean?

Read back through the archives and find out how many dozens of insults
and verbal abuse I've taken from you with smiles. You just sent more,
and the obvious way to tell you that I don't want more is to send some
back and let you taste your own medicine. So either start behaving
like a decent human critter, or go smurf yourself.

>By the way, your 'joke' wasn´t funny at all.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

>Nope. Even chanting Nama-abhasa will be beneficial. The mercy of the Name
>and associating with Vaishnavas will work for everybody who has faith
>(sraddha). One doesn´t have to be enlightened or pure for the method to
>work.

:) Here we go again. Why then are you saying that everybody who failed
did so because they weren't pure enough?

>>My basic meditation and Angelique's grounding exercise can awaken the
>>heart to the fullest after just minutes of practice, if not the first
>>time, then the second, if you _have_ a heart to be awakened, and if
>>you are willing to surrender to the method without limitations, that's
>>the only condition.
>
>You seem to lack spiritual knowledge when writing 'if you _have_ a heart'.

If someone doesn't have a developed mental body (the one that is
associated with the main level of the heart chakra), no method for
opening the heart will work. You would probably say that such people
don't have the taste for the love of God.

Don't be so quick with your conclusions, it isn't a wise strategy to
start a sentence with a conclusion about me, and then back it up with
just a guess, which is actually wrong. It is better to just ask "what
did you mean by that?", like ordinary, non-vaisnava folks do, the ones
who have manners and education and basic human decency that is
required in a serious discussion about matters such as God and
enlightenment. English is my second language, and I still manage to
form sentences in a way that will hopefully never be pointed against
the person, since it is rude and abusive and it displays a clear lack
of tact.

>Who is Angelique?

The owner of the Kundalini mailing list and a dear personal friend.

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

"Sundarananda Dasa" wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda Dasa
Member posted 09-19-1999 04:49 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Premananda, why do you think I would ever want to answer anything you
>>have to say? Every time I tried to have a conversation with you, it
>>was completely useless, because you don't know anything and you are
>>extremely arrogant and offensive. But hope is eternal, so I write.
>
>Danijel, it wasn´t I who started being arrogant and offensive.

Yes you were.

>>>And what or who is God ?
>>
>>Acintya nirguna, sat-cit-ananda.
>
>And what does that mean in English?

Beyond gnosis (comprehension is a good translation: God is beyond
comprehension), of no qualities (that which is the foundation of all
qualities has no quality, since all quality is given within it, and
none without it. This is a basic definition of the absolute, as the
uncaused primordial cause and source of all qualities which transcends
them all). Being-consciousness-bliss, one quality which can be
perceived as all three: being that is consciousness and bliss,
consciousness that is being and bliss, bliss that is consciousness and
being, one quality that can be described by all three qualities, and
is perceived in triputibedha, unity of the observer, observation and
the observed, which is nirvikalpa samadhi. Practically, this is how a
relative being can perceive the Absolute and still come back to tell
about it.

>>>I suppose you know all the people in the world, and their hearts, who
>>>are chanting Hare Krishna, and therefore know that the result is
>>>'pathetic'
>>
>>I don't have to, I'm talking to those with pathetic results.
>
>You said that the method of chanting Harinama 'sucks'. Are you changing your
>mind now?

Why should I, I gave solid evidence that was never disproved, and the
evidence says that something is seriously wrong. Either you're doing
it wrong, in which case you'll improve and prove me wrong, or it's
inherently flawed as a method, in which case it should be abandoned
for something better. So far I didn't see deep intuition here,
recognition of deep states of consciousness for which I gave the
clues. You also didn't come even close to reading my motives, or
figuring me out. Therefore I have no reason to suspect that you have
developed any spiritual qualities with your practice.

>>>Absolute truth is never an object, but it is the Supersubject.
>>
>>This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. But with this you
>>just buried dvaita; I didn't know you're from Sankaracarya's lineage.
>>;)
>
>I did not. In fact I did just the opposite!

Let me demonstrate it for you. If the Absolute is the supersubject, it
is the inherent reality of all beings. From that we come to the
conclusion that atman (an individual soul) is in its nature in fact
brahman (the Absolute). Since in Absolute there is no division (since
division implies relation), there is only One Self in all beings, and
its division is due to the relative sphere of existence (maya). In
maya there are upadhis (limitations) projected upon atman which create
the appearance of multitude, like one moon reflects on many cups of
water. The division is not within the moon, which is one, but in the
sphere of reflections. So the true self, atman, is in fact the moon,
not the individual reflections in the cups. Destruction of a cup does
not influence the existence of the moon.
That is practically pure Sankaracarya, plus some Upanisads.

>Singing and reciting Harinama indeed universal. In all religions there are
>songs of praise and prayers in which God´s Name is recited and sung.
>What is important to understand here Danijel is that if one doesn´t practice
>properly the desired result will not be attained.
>If one is committing nama-aparadha one will never chant the Name proper.

You repeat yourself. If one doesn't chant properly one can't be saved,
therefore the power of the method is limited. It is limited to those
who can chant without offense, and since only the enlightened ones can
chant without offence, only they can benefit from it. Therefore we can
safely say that as a method of enlightening the unenlightened the
method is inefficient. Is that what you're saying?
If you, on the contrary, say that its power is unlimited, how come
there are no adequate results?

>Exactly. It´s the same with the chanting of Harinama. You know, everybody
>who becomes a member of ISKCON for example isn´t near enlightenment, there
>are persons who are on different levels of spiritual advancement.

Of course, but it is said that yoga is a process, though which one is
purified; one goes from impurity to purity, from imperfect to perfect.
One can't go from nothing to something, yoga can fan a tiny flame of
mumuksutva (desire of liberation) into a raging fire of enlightenment,
but it can't create the initial flame, it has to come from the person,
it is the basic motivation. Those who have that flame can either find
a good technique and become enlightened, or find a bad technique and
become ruined, or simply stagnate. If a technique is successful in
enlightening those who are qualified (adhikari), then it can be
accepted as good, otherwise it should be renounced. There are
different techniques, for different stages of the path. For someone
who has no desire for liberation (who doesn't feel God within and
doesn't feel a desire to go back to him), a technique must be made
that will evolve the person to the degree of feeling such desire, and
pointing the inner view to God. When the inner view is pointed to God,
and there is a desire to realize God, that person can be called a yoga
student (adhama adhikari). Through practice of connection with God
within, one is purified further, to a degree of an advanced student
(madhyama adhikari), and then to a degree of a realized student
(uttama adhikari). Then as he is completely emerged in God, and all
impurities are annihilated through practice, such person becomes a
master of yoga (yogiraja/yogesvara). Such master can initiate students
and convey his/her vision to them, and thus continue the lineage.
Without such a completely realized master, enlightenment is extremely
difficult and can be attained only by a few.

>(snip)
>
>>>Wrong Danijel.
>>>God´s Name identical with Him and Her.
>>
>>Prove it. If you do, you'll bury your technique, as I did before with
>>the same argument.
>
>AAAAAAAAAAALready have, dude, if you had intelligence you would have
>understood by now.

:))) You just can't see when you're defeated, can you?

>>Do you have any personal experience to back that up with? I hate
>>writing from experience with people who throw quotes from books at me.
>
>I am happy to hear that you are so advanced,

Is that an attempt of irony?

>and I don´t want to discuss my
>experiences with you Danijel.

Then be silent and say not the things you can't back up.

>>>>You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
>>>
>>>Hehehe, I don´t think you understand that sentence Danijel.
>>
>>I don't think you understand humor. You should try it, it's good for
>>health. It's also a quality of those who have a full heart. It just
>>overflows and all the fun comes out. :)
>
>Danijel, that wasn´t nice. If you are so enlightened, why are you being so
>mean?

Read back through the archives and find out how many dozens of insults
and verbal abuse I've taken from you with smiles. You just sent more,
and the obvious way to tell you that I don't want more is to send some
back and let you taste your own medicine. So either start behaving
like a decent human critter, or go smurf yourself.

>By the way, your 'joke' wasn´t funny at all.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

>Nope. Even chanting Nama-abhasa will be beneficial. The mercy of the Name
>and associating with Vaishnavas will work for everybody who has faith
>(sraddha). One doesn´t have to be enlightened or pure for the method to
>work.

:) Here we go again. Why then are you saying that everybody who failed
did so because they weren't pure enough?

>>My basic meditation and Angelique's grounding exercise can awaken the
>>heart to the fullest after just minutes of practice, if not the first
>>time, then the second, if you _have_ a heart to be awakened, and if
>>you are willing to surrender to the method without limitations, that's
>>the only condition.
>
>You seem to lack spiritual knowledge when writing 'if you _have_ a heart'.

If someone doesn't have a developed mental body (the one that is
associated with the main level of the heart chakra), no method for
opening the heart will work. You would probably say that such people
don't have the taste for the love of God.

Don't be so quick with your conclusions, it isn't a wise strategy to
start a sentence with a conclusion about me, and then back it up with
just a guess, which is actually wrong. It is better to just ask "what
did you mean by that?", like ordinary, non-vaisnava folks do, the ones
who have manners and education and basic human decency that is
required in a serious discussion about matters such as God and
enlightenment. English is my second language, and I still manage to
form sentences in a way that will hopefully never be pointed against
the person, since it is rude and abusive and it displays a clear lack
of tact.

>Who is Angelique?

The owner of the Kundalini mailing list and a dear personal friend.

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