premada@aol.com (Premada) wrote:
>Danijel,
>
>I've also enjoyed reading your posts.

Thanks. :)

>As of late I've been working overtime, trying to get to Braja for parikrama,
>and have only had time to read these posts and little time for a proper
>response.

No problem. :)

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

"Premananda Dasa" wrote:
>Danijel
>
>You suck.

:)))
I like you, too. :))

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

"Premananda Dasa" wrote:

>Danijel,
>
>Some comments on your neophyte observations.

:))

>>How do we determine if the method is actually that good? We test
>>it in laboratory conditions first, then in real life conditions, and
>>if the results justify its application, the method can be approved as
>>good. So, what do I decide if a method which is meant to increase
>>learning speed actually _decreases_ it, and creates mental imbalance
>>in 45% of the practitioners? I'll decide that it's dangerous and
>>non-functional. I don't care in which book it's recommended, it simply
>>sucks.
>
>You say that the process of chanting Harinama simply sucks. This means that
>you criticize the direct teachings of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu - God.

That is only partially true. I _observe_ that the _results_ of the
method suck. To disprove that, you have to either prove that my
observations are wrong, and the results don't suck, or you have to
apply a different approach and say that the original method given by
Caitanya is good and gave excellent results when it was practiced
correctly (for that you can probably quote evidence), but in the
meantime something was either lost or misinterpreted and thus the
problems.

>You immediately come to the conclusion that the method of chanting is
>defect.

This conclusion is inescapable. No evidence was given to prove that it
has any positive effects, and the evidence that backs my thesis is
provided daily by the method's very practitioners.

>But I say that the people who have mental imbalances, had it before
>starting to chant Harinama maha-mantra.

That would be impossible to prove, I'm afraid, and even if you managed
to do it, you would dig your own grave, because if chanting the mantra
wasn't able to cure those imbalances (you yourself advertised it as
more-less omnipotent), then you proved the very point you find so
offensive, and that is the inefficiency of the method.
You can say that nobody can chant it without offence because everyone
is materially contaminated, and then again you prove my point that
they never said the mantra, they just said the words because they
weren't pure enough to touch the essence, which is Krsna.

If those who aren't pure can't be purified by it, then it's no method,
it's the goal. It's like saying the following:
"The rich people live in Monte Carlo. Therefore, if you want to be
rich, go to Monte Carlo and live there."

Now, you didn't do much if someone listens to you, comes to Monte
Carlo and lives the life of a beggar on the street, and if he then
asks you how come he isn't rich, you tell him that he wasn't rich
enough to practice the method. :)

>And how did they perform the
>chanting? Was it free from Namaparadha? If not, then their chanting will not
>give the desired result. You hastily conclude that the ISKCON devotees you
>have observed performed mantra-japa perfectly. But it isn´t necessarily so.

I don't know how they performed anything, I simply observe the
condition of their minds, energy flows and bodies.
They are powered by anger and hate. Of course, they'll quote some
scripture in which such behavior is justified, like, it's good to spit
all over your enemies if they're the really bad demons or mayavadis or
ritviks or GBC homosexuals or whatever. But from what I see, they are
so drained, so utterly devastated as persons, that intense negative
motivations are the only thing that gives them enough power to keep
existing. There's no love, no bliss, no ecstasy of realization,
nothing, just talk about those things, but anger and hate are real,
they can stimulate them. Spit on the enemy and feel good. Maybe you'll
even convince yourself that you're good for something. That kind of
thinking. This is serious pranic and astral imbalance, and it is close
to serious illness and death. All the natural pranic flows were closed
with the strict regulations, but the higher ones that are supposed to
substitute them were not opened - lower joys were prohibited, but the
higher ones are missing, and the only joy in life is imagined,
virtual. Let's pretend to be happy, smile for the tourists. But your
pranic system breaks, you dry up and die, and before that you become a
twisted shadow of your former being. Those are the results which I
have observed in _all_ Hare Krishna communities that I've met.
What was I supposed to conclude, that the method is good but nobody
did it well? It's more likely that it is totally wrong, that the
entire approach sucks.

>>Basically, one repetition of the mantra is as good as the infinite
>>number of repetitions, because mantra transcends quantity, since it's
>>quality is absolute. Therefore if mantra is said only once, it creates
>>the absolute result. If the absolute result isn't achieved the first
>>time, the mantra wasn't said. (which is what I stated in the first
>>message, if you read carefully)
>
>Yes, but if you don´t get the absolute result the first time, will you quit
>repeting the mantra?

It depends on how smart I am. If I'm smart and I use my head, I'll
think about what "God's name" means, and what it means to invoke God's
name. Maybe I'll figure out that quantity doesn't matter and that I
should concentrate on the quality. And maybe when I realize the depth
of the implications, I won't dare say it in vain. But when I say it
for the first time, I'll get the absolute result.

>And even if one gets the absolute result the first time, that is no reason
>for stopping to chant.

:) Yes there is, when you get bread in the store, you don't have to
keep repeating "bread please". :) You say "thank you". :)

>Rather the opposite. When you realize the absolute
>nature of the Holy Name you will desire to chant it all the time! Since you
>have no experience of it you can not understand.

:)))

>>ISKCON, if not GV (abbrev. Gaudiya Vaisnava). I don't know how
>>acceptable Prabhupada's claims and methods are to the official GV
>>circles, but judging on the fact that Prabhupada is considered rather
>>orthodox in those circles, I'm free to conclude that the same measures
>>would be seen as valid there, as well.
>
>You don´t know much do you Danijel?
>First of all: Bhaktivedanta Swami is not accepted as an orthodox Vaisnava in
>the Gaudiya Vaisnava circles. The majority of Gaudiya Vaisnavas don´t accept
>the ISKCON parampara as valid. They have deviated in many ways from the pure
>teachings and practices of the religion.

:)) I foresee an interesting flame war going your way. :)

>>Maha-mantra, well known to you, which I won't write here since at this
>>point I can't back it up, is absolute, and reflects God's inner
>>nature. With that I agree. This is the purusottama mantra, it invokes
>>the highest attributes of Krsna, son of Devaki and Vasudeva,
>
>The highest attributes of the Absolute are not found in the son of Vasudeva
>and Devaki but in Krishna as the son of Nanda and Yasoda in Goloka
>Vrindavan.

:)) You probably saw them both and compared. :)) Then you said "you,
Krsna son of Devaki and Vasudeva, piss off, you're inferior". :)))

>>I think Prabhupada agrees with me, from what he wrote it is apparent
>>that he, too, thought that connection with God manifests in a person's
>>life, improving it dramatically; the symptoms of Krsna consciousness.
>>The Divine qualities should become more present, and the material
>>qualities are supposed to vanish. A person is supposed to achieve that
>>by means of japa and kirtana. OK.
>
>Yes, and if it isn´t achieved it is wrong to conclude (as you do) that it is
>the method, the religion, which is imperfect. The practitioners are not
>performing their sadhana properly, there are offences in the chanting, such
>as inattentiveness, material desires, sadhu-ninda, etc.

:)) OK, so we agree that those who are not perfectly enlightened can't
chant God's name. :)

>>Now, their conclusion would probably be that
>>the fallen guys didn't follow the principles, they didn't chant
>>enough, they didn't distribute Prabhupada's books enough, and
>>therefore they've fallen into bla bla whatever. I have a simpler
>>explanation. The method is worthless. It doesn't work.
>
>Are you stupid or are just playing the devil´s advocate here again?

No, I'm just a stupid devil's advocate here. :)))

>Have you met any Indian Gaudiya Vaisnavas?

I met one's student, and he was no different from ISKCON members in
any way. And you, too, are proving my point excellently. ;)

>Have you met Srila Vishnudas
>Babaji? Have you met Srila Jiva Gosvami? These persons are so full of the
>love of God that you would become inspired by simply meeting them for a few
>seconds. These great souls, among others, are following the method of
>chanting harinama as revealed by Sriman Mahaprabhu. And it evidently _does_
>work!

:)))))

>Your childish conclusions are based simply upon observations of a bunch of
>Western ISKCON members. Hardly a scientific way of obtaining knowledge in
>order to be able to come to a proper understanding and conclusion about the
>validity of the method of chanting the Maha-mantra!

:)))) As long as your kindness and spiritual magnitude prove me wrong,
I remain content in firm belief that Indian GV are different from
Western GV. :)
(from the info I got, they are different, but probably worse)

>>The conclusion is that the method didn't have any
>>lasting positive effects, but it had lasting negative effects that are
>>very visible all over the Internet and everywhere else. You tell me
>>that folks get enlightened by following the method - prove it! Give me
>>evidence. A statistically relevant number of people who practiced the
>>method and achieved enlightenment - the real one, the guy has to be
>>far superior in creativity, love and personal brilliance compared to
>>the average human being.
>
>My advice is: Go to India and meet real Vaishnavas.

:) I was in India last year and I really lack any desire to repeat
that. ;) If you want my analysis, I'll be happy to provide.

>>>Even the transcendentalists who are consciousness of God in His impersonal
>>>Brahman aspect are attracted to the highest conception of God as the
>>>Supreme Person when they hear of it.
>>
>>Do you have any real life examples of that, besides Kumaras on their
>>visit to Vaikuntha? ;)
>
>Of course. I was an impersonalist myself.

:) I can imagine how you define an impersonalist, I call them just
atheists, it makes it simpler to classify things.

>>>The only thing you have achieved is a
>>>worldly position that is very pleasing to the ego.
>>
>>:)))) Is there a mirror somewhere in front of you, that gives you a
>>clear look of the person you're describing? :)
>
>What you have written is reflecting what you are like.

:)))

>>From what I can see, the fruits of that sampradaya are poisonous.
>>People get emotionally, mentally and physically sick. Not to mention
>>moral corruption. I loathe it utterly.
>
>You are really an offensive, deranged person if you say that the whole
>Gaudiya Vaisnava religion is poisonous.

Ahh, you pure bhaktas, you just keep flattering...
:)))))))))))))

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

"Premananda Dasa" wrote:
>>Thanks David :), I was already seriously considering unsubscribing,
>>because the situation didn't look like something I'd want to be a part
>>of.
>
>You are the one who started to provoke and write offensive things about the
>Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition. Then expect an answer that is befitting.

A befitting answer would be to disassemble each thesis I offered, find
the weak spots or contradictions, and show the opposite examples, thus
clearly proving me wrong. Or, analyzing my points and seeing where
they make sense, analyzing your own stands and seeing weak spots in
them (like presuming that membership in Gaudiya sampradaya makes you
automatically right), and learning more about what you thought you
knew.

Instead you went ad hominem and thus admitted defeat. If your system
of beliefs is so weak, that I can get you into fits of anger while I'm
having a nice time juggling with arguments, then your philosophy is
really regrettable.

You said something about vedic science. I don't know what they taught
you about science, but if you're on a college and the professor asked
you to prove Pitagora's theorem, and you got mad at him, telling him
that his mother is a slut and his father is a pedophile, I don't think
you'd gain much respect in scientific circles. ;)

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

Thanks David :), I was already seriously considering unsubscribing,
because the situation didn't look like something I'd want to be a part
of.

"David Bruce Hughes" wrote:
>Danijel is right, and Premananda's reply is a perfect example of the kind of
>neophyte mentality he finds such a turn-off.

OK, now what am I trying to accomplish here? I'm intentionally
provocative, and sometimes I'll defend some attitude that I don't
necessarily believe in, just to see how people respond to it. I tried
to express my thoughts very logically, without any emotional carving
in it, so if I made a logical mistake it should be easily noticed,
pointed out and correct interpretation should be made.
For instance, imagine that I said that it's good to eat meat, that I
gave several reasons for it, and expected this thesis to be defeated
with the greatest of ease. And instead I found people who for instance
tell me that I'm a deluded fallen soul filled with the utmost darkness
of the maya, slave of the tamo-guna in its darkest aspect, that I
don't understand anything and I'll surely burn in hell.
You might easily conclude what I'll think of such response and those
who made it.

>We should think, 'How would Srila Prabhupada engage this person?' He would
>find the spark of interest and fan it into a raging flame of bhakti.

:) That's the spirit. :)
What did Prabhupada do when he was challenged by the opposed stands?
What did he do with his life, anyway? Did he stay in his little room
on the top of the temple in Vrndavana, translating Srimad
Bhagavatapurana, thinking that it would be useless to go to America,
since there are only Mleccha and Yavana, everybody eats meat, nobody
understands Krsna and Caitanya, and nobody's definitely qualified for
anything? He thought that this very condition is the best reason for
him to go there and tell them what he thinks of it, tell them that
there's better stuff around, and if they didn't think so, he gave his
best to prove them wrong. The man had balls of solid rock. He came to
a foreign country without money or anything, almost died during the
travel, to have a chance to preach to the stoned hippies in his small
dirty room in the Bowery, while making them lunch.
He didn't think that his stands are so poorly founded, that he has to
stay in his room in Vrndavana and not talk to "the unqualified",
because if he does, he might fall from his cloud or something.

>Danijel, the best advice I can offer is to ignore these misguided children
>and just read Srila Prabhupada's books. You will find great wealth hidden
>there.

Actually I did, among other books, and to a degree possible (I read
probably everything published by BBT in Croatian language, and some
older editions published in the Serbian language). It's not like I'm
unfamiliar with Prabhupada's views; I'm writing here to remind people
of the reason why Prabhupada expected his students to distribute his
books. He didn't do it to get lots of money from it, that's for sure.
Remember the response he gave to a letter from some students, who
suggested some business with the gemstones? From Satsvarupa's book? He
thought about it, and said "no, just distribute the books. If you
engage in worldly business you will become karmis. If you distribute
the books, you'll have to express and defend the philosophy expressed
in them. To do that, you'll have to study the books yourself. To be
able to present Krsna properly, you'll have to be Krsna conscious." Or
something like that, I'm writing from memory. Distributing books is
meant to force people to think about what's in those books, to defend
some complex point in the airport when they stop the university
professor by accident and ask him to buy Gita. To improvise
eloquently, with greatest of ease. Adapt to the situation and prevail.
The biggest difference between Prabhupada and his students was in his
ability to adapt to a new situation, and improvise a new approach
suitable for it. They just imitated him, and when the circumstances
changed, they didn't know what to do, they couldn't improvise or do
anything creative, he had to do all the creative thinking himself and
then they could continue with the routine undemanding work. They were
afraid to improvise. He wasn't. So when he died everything went
straight to hell.
So, I'd like to hear improvised defense as a response to my improvised
attacks. :)

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

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Tu cu se puno oslanjati na Danijelove izjave, one mi se cine
>najtocnijima.(Pozdrav Danijele! :)))

:))) Nisam ja nista kriv, casna rijec, ja ne znam matematiku. :))))

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

"Premananda Dasa" wrote:


Where I come from, when confronted with arguments one responds in the
same manner.

>Danijel,
>
>You are gravely mistaken about the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

Prove me wrong, then. Defend your lineage and your teaching. Sharpen
your arguments in a discussion. Do anything that will force you to
think. This newsgroup is a field of endless and futile flame wars
based on mutual resentment and hatred. Anything might be improvement
on that.

>Since you
>are offensive to the teachings of the Vedas and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu you
>have no merit nor qualification for understanding the Vedic Science.

So defend it!

>Grow up guy!

:)) This is such a statement of powerful logical mind and profound,
subtle thought powered by deep devotion, that I'm left speechless in
deep adoration of the loving kindness, that radiates from You, a pure
devotee, reminding fallen souls of Krsna's glory and the fields of
Vrndavana.
;)))) (now Papa Smurf is displaying a really naughty grin)

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

orlic@eskola.hfd.hr (Damir Orlic) wrote:
>>nadredjena, i da stvarnost uvijek mora biti sredstvo kalibracije
>>svakog modela, a model nikada ne smije biti sredstvo ogranicavanja
>>stvarnosti. U protivnom se dolazi do zabluda kada se nekakvi spis drzi
>>vrhovnom stvarnoscu, pa ce se tumacenje tog spisa drzati cak
>>vjerodostojnijim od opazanja stvarnosti.
>
>Ovo ne bi bio problem kada bih ja mogao opazati _stvarnost_. ;)))))

To je sad drugi par rukava, jest da postoje razliciti stupnjevi dubine
uvida u stvarnost, ali opet postoji razlika izmedju stvarnosti tvrdoce
cigle zato sto si s njom dobio po glavi i stvarnosti necega zato sto
Ti je netko tako rekao. U smislu u kojem ja ovdje govorim o
stvarnosti, udarac ciglom u glavu je stvarniji u vecoj mjeri od
necijeg misljenja o cigli, i prenosi bit cigle u vecoj mjeri, ako
kuzis kaj hocu reci. :)
U biti hocu reci da se treba ici od stvarnosti prema vecoj stvarnosti.

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

orlic@eskola.hfd.hr (Damir Orlic) wrote:
>>:) Ma meni se cini da je Tebi osnovna motivacija da svoje krscanstvo
>>nekako uzdignes i proglasis necim sto je jako jedinstveno, pa
>>pokusavas naci sve moguce specificnosti krscanstva u odnosu na druge
>>sustave, i proglasavas takve specificnosti znakom da je krscanstvo
>>bolje. Meni se pak cini da ces takve specificnosti jako tesko naci, a
>>ako ih i nadjes, tesko ce biti dokazati da su one nesto posebno dobro,
>>a ne recimo nesto po cemu je krscanstvo u stvari inferioran sustav, pa
>>bih na Tvojem mjestu bio jako oprezan s izjavama. :))
>
>Meni uopce nije jasno zasto netko tko je JS ne bi pokusao 'natjerati'
>i druge da postanu JS, ili netko tko je krscanin zasto ne bi pokusao
>uzdignuti svoju vjeru. No po onoj zidovskoj poslovici :
>
> Vjera je kao prdac, ako nije tvoja smrdi!
>
>je lako zakljuciti da ce svatko velicati svoju vjeru, svoju religiju.
>Pa nitko nije glup da ne uzme 'najbolje'. ;)))))))))))))))

S jedne strane je u svakom slucaju istina da svatko vjeruje da je
njegov sustav najbolji, jer da je nasao neki koji smatra boljim, onda
bi njega prihvatio a svoj dotadasnji odbacio. Ali isto tako treba sve
sustave, svjetonazore, drzati samo radnim modelima. Ne relativizirati
ih u smislu da se do tog radnog modela ne drzi previse, nego ga
smatrati najboljim sto uopce imas i znas, ali biti svjestan da
stvarnost u krajnjoj liniji nadilazi svaki model i da mu je
nadredjena, i da stvarnost uvijek mora biti sredstvo kalibracije
svakog modela, a model nikada ne smije biti sredstvo ogranicavanja
stvarnosti. U protivnom se dolazi do zabluda kada se nekakvi spis drzi
vrhovnom stvarnoscu, pa ce se tumacenje tog spisa drzati cak
vjerodostojnijim od opazanja stvarnosti.

>inicijacije postaju svecenicki narod ujedinjeni u misticnom Kristovu
>tijelu, koji u dio dobivaju milosti koje su nezasluzeni dar. Stoga
>nije ni cudo sto si osjetio da svecenik koji je dosao blagosloviti
>tvoju kuci, moze spustiti fini nivo blagolsova. Ne po tome sto je on
>neki 'pametnjakovic' ili svetac, nego po milosti koja mu je udjeljena
>u skladu s njegovom sluzbom. No isto tako je znakovito da to sto on
>spusti (blagoslov) ne mora ni ostati tu nego se moze vratiti tamo
>odakle je i doslo.

Meni se cini da sva takva nasljedja/organizacije, po nekakvoj
"sluzbenoj duznosti" imaju ovlasti odredjenog reda, recimo davanje
blagoslova odredjene razine. Svecenik recimo moze dovesti mir u
stvarnost nekog mjesta, ali hoce li taj mir tamo ostati ovisi o volji
bica koja tamo zive, i koja se mogu odluciti za mir a i za nemir. Ako
se odluce za nemir, mir se povlaci.

>dosli do religije. I onda je on rekao da jos u svom zivotu nije vidio
>istinskog krscanina.

To je klasicna floskula kojom se cesto opravdavaju luzeri.

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

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>Ima jedna knjiga, "Isus je zivio u Indiji" ako se ne varam, gdje je opisano
>dosta stvari u vezi njegovog zivota pa tako i taj period sazrijevanja.
>Problem je sto ja nisam citao tu knjigu nego moj tata( bio je jako
>odusvljen, cak ju je dao i nasem sveceniku :)), pa cu govoriti iz druge
>ruke. Koliko se sjecam tamo je razradjena teorija o tome kako je Isus bio na
>skolovanju kod indijskih yogija, ima navodno cak i dosta dokaza i
>materijala. Ako nekoga zanima mislim da bih mogao doci do knjige pa reci
>malo vise :)).

Ne znam, nisam to citao ali mi se cini da se radi o necem jako
nategnutom.

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