X-Ftn-To: Lupio

Lupio wrote:
>> Zasto?
>>
>Reakcije 99,9% normalnih ljudi na spomen toga za sada krajnje
>agresivno, skepti?no i negativno reagiraju (aktivacija negativnog
>engrama/implanta).

To se uvijek desava kad ljudi cuju nekoga pricati o stvarima o kojima
ocigledno nema jebenog pojma.

(pazi se da ne bi lagano gubio tjelesnu masu od "disanja svjetlosti",
to se svim "breatharijancima" koje sam do sada vidio desava, makar oni
"zive od svjetlosti". To nije lightworkerski nego yogijski "stos"
najviseg reda, potrebno je u cijelosti ovladati sa pat nizih cakri
(mulaadhara, svaadhisthana, manipura, anahata i visuddha, potrebno je
"dobiti dopustenje" za koristenje vajre u tijelu (vrsni resurs
visuddhe), i obustavljanjem svih nizih aktivnosti kroz visuddhu disati
"plavu". Postoji jos stoseva ali ne bih Ti preporucio da se s tim
igras, jer sasvim sigurno nisi u stanju to povuci, mozes se jedino
igrati prane i astrala, i impresionirati ljude koji jos manje kuze
stvari od Tebe)

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

X-Ftn-To: Vjera Lopina

Vjera.Lopina@warp.fido.hr (Vjera Lopina) wrote:
> DT> jer u njemu nema nikakve paranoje ni
> DT> histerije, vanzemaljci su oslikani kao sasvim normalna bica,
> DT> drugacija od ljudi, razmisljanje im nije projekcija nekih ljudskih
> DT> fantazija i strahova nego se radi o jednostavno drugacijim bicima.
>
>A po cemu su drugacija, kad i medju ljudima ima onih koji obozavaju sladoled
>od jagode i vole tibetansku glazbu?

Opceniti feeling koji dobijem kad citam taj clanak nije napunjen
histericnim astralom nego sve izgleda prilicno normalno. Recimo, Ti mi
se ne bi mogla prodati pod vanzemaljca ni da dubis na glavi i krestis
"bliiip", jer Ti je background previse predvidljivo ljudski. Jednako
kao sto zene i muskarci zamisljaju svoje "idealne" osobe suprotnog
spola, a u stvari dobiju samo jako prepoznatljivu zensku ili musku
seksualnu fantaziju (koja sa stvarnim suprotnim spolom nema veze),
tako i ljudi kad im se prividjaju vanzemaljci umjesto komada izmisle
uvijek nesto sto je izuzetno jasna projekcija nekih ljudskih
svojstava. Predlazem da se prisjetis onoga sto je Ratko napisao u
jednoj raspravi o tome nedavno, naime da mu se ne cini da s tim
izvjestajima imaju veze neki vanzemaljci zbog sadrzaja onoga sto se
govori, a sto je samo limunada napravljena od nekih plitkih ljudskih
filozofija. Naime kad je Marco Polo dosao u Kinu, i vratio se
pricajuci o onome sto je tamo vidio, to je bio civilizacijski shock,
potpune novosti, potpuno drugacija civilizacija, sve.

> DT> Zbog takvih elemenata mi se cini da bi to moglo biti prilicno blizu
> DT> istini, a koliko je istinito, to ja ne znam.
>
>Ne znam ni ja, ali argumentacija Ti bas nije 'na visini'.

Nije to ni zamisljeno kao neka argumentacija, ja sam napisao da se
meni cini da bi moglo biti nesto u tome, ali me ne bi pretjerano
iznenadilo ni da nema, nego je netko bio malo kreativniji u
izmisljanju.

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

chekitan@bahnhof.se (Jahnu) wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 12:35:57 GMT, dturina@geocities.com (Danijel
>Turina),wrote:
>
>>There were some people who said that they would want to prove me
>>wrong, if they had time, but as time passes nothing seems to happen,
>>except a few traditional flames between two groups of Prabhupada's
>>disciples, who indulge in name calling and dramatical statements.
>>
>>
>>So, shall we dance? ;)
>
>Sure, any time. It'll be my pleasure. What would you like to discuss?

Well, I thought that my previous postings made my position quite
clear, but I'll try to sum it up. The basic principle that I
introduced was judgment by the criteria of the fruits. That means that
the value of some system of belief can be determined by the spiritual
condition of its followers; their spiritual condition can most often
be determined by their deeds. I also said that it seems to me that
Prabhupada used that very same criteria to defend his philosophy: he
said that his disciples uphold the highest spiritual laws, that their
lives are balanced etc. - and therefore I guess that this criteria
would be considered acceptable.
The method of chanting mahamantra is advertised as the "highest form
of yoga", because it brings souls directly to Krsna, who is the
highest goal. The power of the mantra is also very clearly stated, it
is said that even one saying of the mantra will change a person's
life, and it will soon bring one to perfection.
Stating that, I asked people from the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition how
they explain the obvious lack of any spiritual value in the
practitioners of the method - all sorts of accusations and
name-calling over Internet is enough evidence - and I got, to put it
very mildly - very questionable arguments (meaning: they started
telling me what an ignorant idiot I am), without even bothering to
consider my arguments.
From. the bits of incoherent response that I got, I isolated two
directions in which the defense of the method could go. One is that
the practitioners committed offence in chanting, and the other is that
practitioners who are charged with morally questionable deeds were
spiritually impaired to begin with, so they weren't really practicing
the method, etc.
Then I said that this type of argument signs the death certificate to
the method, because yoga is a process. It is the process that purifies
the impure. Prabhupada quoted the example of Sri Narada, who was a
servant's son, and who was purified by the company of pure bhaktas and
by eating the remains of their food. From that it is visible that the
method works if it's capable of purification; if someone needs to be
completely pure to practice the method, then it is not the method, but
the description of the goal, and can't be applied to the people who
aren't enlightened enough to begin with.
I argued from the position that mahamantra is indeed a key to the
highest spiritual state, but it can hardly be called a method of
purification, because it consists of constantly invoking God's inner
attributes which are unattainable by the "ordinary people". Because of
the seriousness of the situation (in ISKCON and similar organizations
there seems to be very little going on besides poisonous quarrels) I
think it would be wise to identify the problem, so it could be solved.
Also, I saw that there's a great deal of self-indulgence in GV
philosophy, and very little ability to defend something from a
position of true understanding. I met ISKCON members in person, and
their arguments were always easily broken; but they didn't find that
to be a real problem, they just said that if I met some senior
devotee, a pure bhakta, that all my doubts would be gone and I would
somehow be filled with Krsna consciousness. Now, when someone breaks
my arguments in two sentences and with great ease, I get worried and I
usually start learning fast, because something is really wrong with my
system. If there really were such "senior devotees" who fill people
with understanding, and my friend from ISKCON knew them, _he_ would be
filled with Krsna consciousness and then his consciousness would
supposedly be wide enough not to snap like a twig on the first sign of
pressure. Since that was not the case, I came to the conclusion that
the entire system is wrong and based solely on self-delusion, and it
would be the best for the people to stay as far away from it as
possible.
But please, read my previous writing, this here is just an
abbreviation.

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

Before one enters a discussion, it is necessary to see one's motives
for such an act; a discussion can be just an ego trip where
participants pat each other on the head, acknowledging each other's
rightfulness, discussing only about minor issues. The opposite
possibility is a poisonous argument where participants feel personally
attacked if their view is opposed or questioned, and such discussions
can occasionally turn physically violent, to the point of murder.

In ancient India, and other cultures like Japan, AFAIK, there was a
custom of philosophical duels, where people entered discussions
gladly, because it was a great privilege to be defeated. How come?
Well, defeat was always voluntary, one would acknowledge defeat, and
one does that only if he feels that he has met his superior, and that
was a great thing, because it allowed one to grow from one's current
position of realization. Therefore it is easy to understand why the
defeated usually accepted the victorious party as his guru, accepting
his viewpoint as his own. If one wasn't willing to admit defeat
because of pride and arrogance, he lost a great deal of respect in his
environment, because such qualities make one unacceptable as an
intellectual, moral or religious authority. That's why there was
practically no preaching: there were discussions, in which the
arguments of both sides were displayed, and if a teaching was
victorious, it was spreading, and if not, it would be abandoned. Often
the entire philosophical schools were forgotten after a defeat in
arguments with an opposing school - nobody would, quite
understandably, voluntarily accept an inferior teaching. Such
dogfights were, obviously, means of eliminating inferior philosophies,
and through them a culture maintained a good spiritual health. If some
philosophy wasn't able to provide good answers to the questions, it
was extinct; today, all sorts of inferior philosophical systems exist
because this method of elimination is abandoned. Most of the cults and
religions that exist today wouldn't exist if they could be defeated
philosophically in such manner. In one such clash of philosophies
classical brahmanic hinduism was utterly defeated by buddhism. In
other clash buddhism was defeated by Sankaracarya's
atma-brahma-advaita vedanta, and was extinct from India.

What were the arguments that were used in such discussions? From what
I could put together, it was basically examples, pictures from either
sastra or experience, or simply logical deduction and induction. It
was the same kind of arguments that Jesus used to convey his point; as
long as everyone thought that the point is valid, it was accepted as
an argument. Often, two sides would just explain their view of the
world, and each would see if the other side has a better explanation -
some unclear points were argued, but the most important thing was to
feel convinced.

The basic motive for abandoning one's view of the world was the love
of truth. Truth was given the highest value, and was cherished above
all other things - sathya paramo dharmah. People were taught to be
guided by their sense for truth, and if one felt the rightness of
something, it was accepted.

One doesn't have a philosophy to just brag with, it is seen as the
means of attaining the highest goal, it is just an instrument, and on
that path the instruments can be changed, the faulty ones can be
abandoned and better ones can be acquired. The basic principle that
has to be accepted before entering an argument is "the truth is most
important to me". One's view has to be subdued to the truth, and the
purpose of a discussion is to find the truth.

What is the best way of "preaching"? You ask someone to talk to you
about God, religion or whatever. You let him explain his position, and
then you explain yours. You ask each other questions, like, "how does
your system explain this:...". Even if nobody wins, everybody will
benefit, because new things to think about will arise, new questions
will be asked, questions that will have to be answered. If they can't
be answered properly, there must be a problem somewhere, and that's
something to work on. There are always two really good questions:
"what is the highest goal", and "how much of that highest goal have I
attained". That's the reality check, simply those two questions. If
those questions are asked regularly, suddenly it will become very
difficult to pass a dysfunctional personality as someone spiritually
developed.

What I would like to know is, how many of this newsgroup's
participants would be willing to really test their philosophy? Defend
it, each and every part of it, and reject everything that they can't
defend, and accept something that makes more sense? I already tried to
start a discussion based on several starting positions, which could
evolve into an interesting exchange. I made a few deliberate mistakes
that were never seen, and I didn't feel like discussing with myself
and finding my own logical flaws - I expected others to do that. But
nothing happened, there was no discussion, nothing, zero, nada, zip,
vacuum. If I disregard a couple of guys who thought that the attempts
to verbally insult me will score them points and have the girls in the
audience cheer for them.
There were some people who said that they would want to prove me
wrong, if they had time, but as time passes nothing seems to happen,
except a few traditional flames between two groups of Prabhupada's
disciples, who indulge in name calling and dramatical statements.


So, shall we dance? ;)

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

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Moras smisliti neki dobar naslov tipa "Prosvjetljenje za 10min" ili "Bog za
>neznalice" tako da i Amero-mentalitet zagrize :)).

:-X :))

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

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote in message
>news:37d87049.5774021@news.tel.hr...
>> Kao prvo moja isprika svima zbog nedostatka prisutnosti na konfi;
>> naime pisem knjigu, koja ce uskoro biti gotova, tako da mi je to
>> trenutno najveci prioritet kojem je sve ostalo podredjeno. Losa strana
>> je ta da me nema na newsima, dobra strana je to da ce HR verzija
>> knjige biti gotova ovaj mjesec. Tnx.
>
>Je'l moze rijec-dvije o cemu se radi :)).

;)))
O istim stvarima o kakvima pisem po konfi, samo koncentriranije. :)
(sad bi spoiler, e, ne bi islo:)

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

X-Ftn-To: Petar

2 All:
Kao prvo moja isprika svima zbog nedostatka prisutnosti na konfi;
naime pisem knjigu, koja ce uskoro biti gotova, tako da mi je to
trenutno najveci prioritet kojem je sve ostalo podredjeno. Losa strana
je ta da me nema na newsima, dobra strana je to da ce HR verzija
knjige biti gotova ovaj mjesec. Tnx.

"Petar" wrote:
>isusa.Oni nisu bili nikakvi prevaranti , vjerovali su u boga i poklapanje
>planeta su protumacili kao bozjim znakom, nakon toga su sami nasli djete za
>koje su mislili da je sin bozji.Dijete koje odrasta u sredini koja ga
>postuje i smatra svojim spasiteljem se tako i ponasa .Kako je rasao u
>takvoj sredini prihvatio je svoju ulogu i sam uvjeren da je sin bozji.I to
>bi bilo to , legenda se vuce kroz povjest i mi danas vjerujemo u boga u
>postojanje u isusa kao sina bozjega.

:) Wow, vis ti to uvjeravanje, tako su ga uspjesno uvjerili da je
uskrsavao mrtve, lijecio bolesne, hodao po vodi, stisavao oluje i
pretvarao vodu u vino. I onda netko veli da je moc sugestije
ogranicena. ;>> ;)))

>Samo u toj mojoj prici puno nedostaje .Npr. kako objasniti predvidanje
>isusa da ce ga Juda izdati kad pijetao triput kukurikne , i slicne stvari
>koje je isus znao.

Ma ne samo to, takva teorija _nista_ ne objasnjava, ne objasnjava
recimo veliku duhovnu snagu i revolucionarnost Isusovih govora koja je
u cijelosti originalna i odudara od ondasnjih tumacenja, i moze se
objasniti jedino velikom duhovnom spoznajom onog tko takve stvari
govori. Savjetujem da si temeljito procitas evandjelja.

>Puno toga sto je zapisano u bibliji nemoze se logicno
>objasniti ,

Moze se sve to logicno objasniti, samo pitanje unutar kojeg sustava
razumijevanja, ako u pocetne premise lose onda ce i logika dati slabe
rezultate, a pogotovo ako je paradigma unutar koje funkcioniras
manjkava. Recimo nekome nece biti moguce logicno objasniti kako je
Isus uskrsnuo Lazara jer ide od premise da je Isus obican covjek kao i
on, a ta premisa je pogresna jer je Isus utjelovljeni Bog. Ako ides iz
te premise, onda sve postaje jako logicno, naime kakav je problem Bogu
uskrsnuti mrtvoga ili umnoziti kruh i ribe ili pretvoriti vodu u vino,
naime svi prirodni zakoni podredjeni su Bogu.

>nemoze se traziti neko drugo logicnjije objasnjenje svega toga
>, to se jednostavno mora vjerovati jer logicnog objasnjenja nema.E sad me

:)) E tu si ga fulao, naime onome cije razumijevanje nije dovoljno
jasno doista ce biti potrebno vjerovati, ali je onome tko je to u
stanju itekako moguce i razumjeti principe na kojima se sve zasniva.

>opet smeta ona prica s biblijom.Navodno je jedan covjek bibliju prebacio u
>kompijuterski jezik i dosao do zakljucka da je biblija radena na
>kompijuteru.

:)))))))

>Ako sve te price o vanzemaljcima i kodiranoj bibliji uzmemo za moguce i
>pokusamo si to logicno objasniti nasa vjera pada , ne sasvim ali u danasnje
>vrijeme sve vise i vise.

Ma daj, zaboravi na formu i pocni citati to sto pise.

>Moj rascijep izmedu Boga i vanzemaljaca ce vrijeme iskristalizirati.Valjda

Kakvi vanzemaljci, okani se tih tlapnji. Ako ima vanzemaljaca, oni
imaju svojih problema jednako kao sto mi imamo svojih, i necemo
rijesiti svoje probleme tako sto cemo ih prebaciti drugome, nego tako
sto cemo se sami za njih pobrinuti.

>cu pozivjeti toliko da ce se te price o vanzemaljcima objelodaniti .Volio
>bi cuti druge sta misle o tome, narocito one koji vjeruju u postojanje
>vanzemaljaca a vjera u boga im jos uvijek nije presusila.Volio bi cuti
>jednu predpostavku i moguce objasnjenje ko je bio isus , dali je on stvarno
>bio sin bozji ili je on bio obican covjek odabran od tri kralja.

:) Kao prvo, "tri kralja" nisu bili Zidovi, oni su po svoj prilici
bili magi porijeklom iz Perzije.
Kao drugo, vanzemaljci moraju postojati, i gotovo sam u cijelosti
uvjeren u neki oblik njihove prisutnosti u suncevom sustavu
(kvalitetni NLO izvjestaji), a sasvim je moguce da izravno suradjuju s
nekim svjetskim vladama, na umjeren i razuman nacin, koji uopce ne
ukljucuje histericne fantazije kojima obiluje senzacionalisticka
stampa, tipa da americka vlada suradjuje s vanzemaljcima na
proizvodnji nekih oruzja. To su gluposti. Najpametniji tekst koji sam
na tu temu procitao glasi da postoji nekoliko vanzemaljskih
"ambasadora", iliti izaslanika-suradnika u Americi, s kojima se
Amerikanci ponasaju jako civilizirano (ne cupaju im nokte i ne pustaju
struju kroz njih, niti ih zive seciraju), kao sto bi se recimo
ponasali prema kolegama znanstvenicima ili prema ambasadorima neke
velesile, i jednostavno uce od njih i o njima kroz osnovnu
komunikaciju; po tom clanku vanzemaljci obozavaju sladoled od jagode i
tibetansku glazbu. Upravo zbog tih elemenata mi se clanak cini toliko
smislenim, jer u njemu nema nikakve paranoje ni histerije, vanzemaljci
su oslikani kao sasvim normalna bica, drugacija od ljudi, razmisljanje
im nije projekcija nekih ljudskih fantazija i strahova nego se radi o
jednostavno drugacijim bicima. Zbog takvih elemenata mi se cini da bi
to moglo biti prilicno blizu istini, a koliko je istinito, to ja ne
znam. U svakom slucaju posve sam siguran da vanzemaljci nemaju nikakve
veze sa Isusom, Isus je daleko nadredjeni fenomen kojem se ne smije
pristupati redukcionisticki, dakle pokusati ga svesti na nesto vec
poznato i "logicki objasnjivo", jer se radi o necemu sto moze odvesti
covjeka u sfere daleko viseg razumijevanja od onog koji bi bio moguc
takvim redukcionizmom. Dakle treba Isusa razumjeti tako da se
uzdignemo do njegove visine, a ne tako sto cemo ga pokusati skratiti
za glavu kako bismo ga spustili na razinu nasih ogranicenja.

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

Zeljko Zidov wrote:
>Krscanska crkva "IHTHUS" Lapacka 30 Zagreb Tel:307-9503

Boze dragi, ja sam mislio da smo se ovih vec rijesili. :)

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

X-Ftn-To: Drazen Simunic

"Drazen Simunic" wrote:
>> Vezivanje pojma srece uz objekte je ono sto tebe sputava.Sve dok srecu
>> trazis "van Sebe" naci ces i nesrecu.
>
>Pa ne trazim ja srecu nego ju teram. :)
>Netreba mi ona, samo smeta. Nije to to.

Onda budes nesretan i neprosvijetljen. :)

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Dzeko

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Ne kuzim se previse u te stvari, zar se Milos ne bi mogao konfi prikljuciti
>preko one mailing liste ?

Damire, je li to izvedivo? Mislim, ako ne ide preko dejanews ili cega
vec, nego preko newsgwy, onda bi stvar radila.
Za pocetak, Milose, probaj otici na http://sibila.zesoi.fer.hr/ugl/
BTW sibila mi se nekako ne javlja, nije li mozda kanta lagano
iskopcana tamo kod Tebe? ;) Diana i Maja se javljaju ko dobre curice.
:)

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