"Premananda Dasa" wrote:
>What you expressed in this message shows that you haven´t understood what
>the Name of God is, nor the revealed process/method of chanting it.

I don't know what it _shows_, or how you are going to interpret my
words. I also don't know what is revealed as a method or not. I care
about what is real, what makes sense and what works. If a method is
tested in real life conditions, its results can be observed and from
that statistical sample conclusions about the validity of a method can
be drawn.
An example. A method of fast learning is invented and advertised.
According to the advertisements, learning speed should be increased by
70%. 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.

>The revealed scriptures and the lineage of gurus coming in the succession
from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu (the avatara of Krishna in Kali-yuga) have
>explained that the Names in the maha-mantra are non-different from God
>Himself. That is, by performing mantra-japa or nama-kirtana one gradually
>becomes aware of the Form, Qualities and Pastimes of Sri Krishna. To
>repetitively chant the maha-mantra is to be immersed in God-consciousness,
>if it is done properly, without offences.

It sounds great. Excellent. If you only knew what you just stated
here, you'd wake up in the middle of the night, screaming. Allow me to
demonstrate.

p-a1. God is absolute
p-a2. God's name is non-different from God
-----
c-a. God's name is absolute

p-b1. In absolute the quantity is irrelevant
c-a. God's name is absolute
-----
c-b. In God's name quantity is irrelevant.

p-c1. The absolute transcends time and space.
p-b1. In absolute the quantity is irrelevant
-----
c-c. Every occurrence of the absolute transcends time and space.

c-c. Every occurrence of the absolute transcends time and space.
c-a. God's name is absolute
-----
c-d. God's name transcends time and space.

And now, allow me to say what it means. I came to the conclusion that
God's name transcends time, space and quantity. That means that for n
repetitions, where n = [1..oo>, the same result is achieved.
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)

Now, let's introduce another premise. The quality of the results shows
the quality of the means. Chanting mantra is the means. The spiritual
state of the practitioners can therefore show what it is good for.

First, let me see if all those premises are valid, just to make sure.
:)

One of the basic tests of each method is its effectiveness. If it
works, use it, if not, drop it. Prabhupada often recommended his
method using this argument: showing his students as an example of the
effectiveness of the method. He also criticized other methods from the
same ground: he said that they didn't work, that practitioners of
other techniques are just sleeping on their courses and the results of
it all are trivial. So, it looks like this criteria is acceptable to
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.

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, Adi
Purusa, Purusa Uttama. If someone is able to say that mantra, he will
instantly become aware of that. That's simply how it works. I'll let
your imagination determine the probable state of spirit of the person
who is observing God's inner being.

Whatever you imagined is necessarily worse than the real thing,
because your imagination is relative and God is absolute. It's always
better than anything you can possibly imagine. It's even better than
what you _can't_ imagine. :)

The qualities of the absolute reflect upon the relative. In the
relative, therefore, we can observe certain qualities that resemble
the absolute, but they are unsteady, changing, they come and go as the
wind in the branches. Those qualities are intelligence, love,
awareness, creativity, and many others. By observing the essence of
those qualities we can get a vague impression on what God's nature can
feel like; since all those qualities are, poetically said, a shadow
which God casts upon the Creation. Some of His nature is reflected in
that, but none of those qualities separately, nor all of them
together, gives you the exact idea of God. It just gets you close
enough to scream, realizing what you're missing.

As you can see, I'm working from philosophical, not theological
premises, I don't quote the scriptures to prove my point, I quote
reality to prove my point. Both reality and the scriptures can be
misinterpreted (as scientists misinterpret reality, the religious
freaks misinterpret the scriptures, and they both do it very
professionally:). Both methods have their advantages and
disadvantages, but I prefer the philosophical approach, since it is
independent on the distortions and misinterpretations common in all
religions. The view of reality can be distorted, but unlike a book, it
can't be faked, adjusted or destroyed, reality just is, and the only
problem is whether we can see what it is, or not. So, I work from a
premise that both reality and scriptures are reflections of God's
nature and intent, and observing the nature of the reality is a good
start.

Be patient with me here, we're almost there. :) (says Papa Smurf)

We can simplify the view of the universe by presuming that it's nature
consists of two basic forces: Divine and material. The quality of the
matter (where the term 'matter' has to be taken in a very wide
meaning) is inertia. Left to its own, the matter is inert, it lacks
creativity, love, intelligence, beauty... actually it sucks, it lacks
everything that's cool. Everything that's cool comes from God. :) So
the logical conclusion is that if we follow the cool, we'll come to
its origin, which is God. The only question is what is cool, and what
sucks. People obviously have different concepts of cool. :) Therefore
it's not easy to determine which qualities are Divine and which are
'material', because it's mostly neither black nor white, but some
shade of gray. It seems that perfection is impossible in the imperfect
world, but one can get damn close to it. For instance Mike Oldfield's
music. The Divine qualities _can_ be manifested, and people _do_
manifest them, those are facts; there are people whose ability to
subdue the natural inertia of the matter to the will of their spirit
highly exceeds the average, people like Nikola Tesla, Bach,
Vivekananda and others. It's not about what they _say_, or write. It's
about who they are, and how they affect the world with their presence.
Creativity. It's the ability to introduce a new element, something
that wasn't there before. You improve things. Conscience. The ability
to feel what's right and what's wrong, and do what's right. Love. The
ability to transcend separation and difference, and introduce unity of
spirit. Those qualities. It's not carved in stone, that's why I use
the unconventional terms like 'cool'. It's weird, but actually it
comes closest to what I'm trying to point to. People who are in touch
with God are cool. They are way, way cool. They are so cool that you
want to kiss their ass, just to be there by them. :) I think I made my
point. :)

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.

How it looks to me? It looks like this: people start chanting the
mantra. It's all new: they accept the new clothing, behavior,
everything, they like it, it makes them feel special. They feel like
they found their way, everything makes sense to them. So, for the
first couple of months, or years, everything is perfect. They display
all the symptoms of enlightenment... err... except some; they were
never creative. Prabhupada always had to supervise everything because
the students could implement his will once he clearly stated it and
gave them direct orders, but they weren't creative. There was no
initiative. That's what happens when you imitate: you can follow all
the rules you know. But if you come to a situation where you don't
know the rules, you become confused and inactive, you think that it's
better to do nothing, than to be creative and risk "falling from
grace". It's like having a book in which falling of the objects is
described. If a red brick falls from ten meters height, it will drop
with the speed v1. If a concrete block falls from five meters, it will
drop with v2, etc. But if one follows such rules, and he has a pink
elephant with yellow spots hanging in the air on 2m height, and
there's nothing in the book about pink elephants with yellow spots on
2m height, he'll probably think that the elephant will keep levitating
there, because the method for falling isn't implemented in the
elephant. :)
What am I trying to say?
The creativity comes from the realization of the basic principle, from
which the individual rules are derived. If there is no realization,
people will stay dependent on books with specific examples, but they
will be unable to improvise.

I will not even attempt to describe the spiritual and physical
condition of the ISKCON members, because friends from pada were kind
enough to rake all the muck for me, and most of the messages on this
NG consist of that. :) 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. They could
imitate the results for a while, but the imitation is demanding and
tiresome and they grew weary of it, so at one point they started
acting naturally - for the distorted condition of their system, of
course. Since they've programmed themselves into thinking that women
are stupid geese who tempt righteous men into sin, they naturally
turned gay, they found themselves some guy or a kid to have sex with,
it's a logical consequence of the programming. It's the same with
everything else. 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.

By one saying of the mantra they were supposed to become enlightened.
And I agree, the mantra really does that. Only they never said it.
They just repeated the words without the background and imagined the
results because they desperately wanted it to work. It didn't and now
they are human ruins. Very bad for health. ;)

>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? ;)

>You claim that you have initiated persons, but the experts of Transcendental
>science would never agree with that.

:))) Show me one expert on Transcendental science. :)

>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? :)

>All real gurus are connected with a sampradaya, such as the Gaudiya
>sampradaya or Shri sampradaya, etc. Any mantra which is not received in a
>sampradaya is fruitless. This is the verdict of Shastra.
>'sampradaya-vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah'

Fro.m 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.

>If you have any questions, don´t hesitate to ask.

Oh, I just might do that. ;)

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

Hello everybody! :)
First, allow me to introduce myself and express the reasons which
motivated me to write. My name is Danijel Turina, as declared in the
"from:" header, I live in Zagreb, Croatia, and I teach Kundalini-yoga.
What does it mean to teach yoga? Well, it isn't that simple to
explain, since yoga is a very wide term that encompasses practically
the entire human existence: body, energy, mind, spirit... basically I
teach people how to act in harmony with God's will in every aspect of
their existence. How I define success? It's doing the right thing when
they wake you up in the middle of the night, by pouring a bucket of
cold water on you. When your memory doesn't work, when you can't
remember what Krsna told Arjuna in BG chapter four, when you have only
your natural resources available, and when such natural actions are in
perfect harmony with God's will (which can, then, be found written in
some scripture... or not).
I had contact with ISKCON folks here in Croatia some time ago, and
they made the same impression upon me as the plastic flowers do.
Artificial. The plastic rose looks like the real one, it's red, it has
petals, it looks like a rose, it even smells like one if you spray
perfume on it, but it just isn't it, if you know what I mean? It's an
imitation, a lousy one, the essence of a rose just ain't there. They
feel like they've read in some book how enlightened folks are supposed
to act, they decided that enlightenment is about displaying the
symptoms of enlightenment, so they started acting like they're
enlightened and said "wow, we really are, gee! now let's tell the
other folks how good it feels". I visited their "sunday feasts"
regularly then; once I got to know a guy who kept filling himself with
prasadam, he was all over food. It looked strange so I asked him
what's that all about, he can't possibly need all that food for his
body to function? He answered that he can't control his sexuality, so
he's trying to compensate it with prasadam; since sexuality sucks and
prasadam is cool, it means he's controlling his senses. Now, you might
imagine that I expressed polite doubt about that; I told him that I'm
just a little yogi kid here, but to me it seems that if someone's
spirit is filled with God's glory at all times, he won't find any
appeal whatsoever in senses or their objects, so his spirit will
naturally be drawn to God without any need for control or
compensation. I also said that AFAIK Prabhupada wrote about that
stuff, saying that if you chant HK mantra, your spirit transcends the
sphere of senses and is connected to God. If that's true, and he's
chanting Hare Krsna all day (he said he's making 16 rounds, which is
108*16=1728 times; if one's awake for 16 hours a day, it means 108
times per hour, which means practically all the time), he wasn't
supposed to have problems with that. If one's reading a good book, he
might find himself stuck in some very weird uncomfortable position for
hours without even noticing, because his mind was completely in the
book. I ain't much of an expert on God, but whenever I met Him He was
far more interesting than any book I ever read, or anything else for
that matter, and from those experiences I kinda conclude that if
someone's conscious of God at all times he ain't supposed to have any
problems with controlling the senses. It simply makes no sense. :)
One other HK guy asked me how many times do I chant mantra. I didn't
know what to say to him. Usually I can't say it at all because if I
just say it, it's a lie, I can't back it up; I can program my PC to
repeat mantra millions of times per hour, but is it really the real
thing? I don't think so. But if I really say it, I can't even complete
one mantra, most of the time, if I really remember God's attributes
contained in it... no way Jose. Two or four words maybe, but then I
get too blissed out to talk or think.
I tell people: if you're able to repeat a mantra longer than 15
seconds, you're doing it wrong. It doesn't work, you might as well
chant "burger with french fries", it's the same thing, just words
without substance.
God's mantra is God's "handle", Windows programmers will know what I
mean. If you have the handle and you call it, you're there with God.
But I don't think that folks understand how big and important it is,
and how profound its meanings are. They radically lack awareness and
are contained with simulating the symptoms. Hell, if I say "bread
please" in a store, someone will give me bread, I'll pay and eat. If I
chant "bread please" in my apartment with nobody there, it ain't do me
much good, is it? It's the same with mantra, if you mean it while you
say it, there's nothing in this world or any other that can match it,
but if you don't, it's just empty. So how often do I say it? Not that
often, only when I can really back it up, and that was just a coupla
times so far. Definitely not 108 times per hour.
Am I constantly conscious of God? Yes and no. I feel Him all the time
as my silent background, the feeling of rightness that I follow when I
do things, a feeling of dharma. Every time I say or write I "listen"
to that feeling and align to it. But am I _really_ aware of God,
meaning invoking His mantra, even the "lower" ones, Om Namo Bhagavate
Vasudevaya, Om Sri Parama Bhagavate Namah...? Not that often, I just
can't, it's too big for me, and too big for what I do. I'd probably
drop my body within minutes, because it makes me lose all the
attachments to my work with people when I do that. It's just too
magnificent for me to remain detached from, even for a moment, when I
remember what I lost... no, I don't remember it often, my friends, I
don't invoke the mantra that much. Only when I want to show my
students what it's about, what the real magnificence is, where they're
heading to. I'm there and I'm not there at the same time, but I hope
to be all there soon without anything here... when the work is over.
But enough about me. :) I selected and dropped this NG on several
instances during the last year, and I didn't know what to do with it -
it certainly didn't contain anything that would be of any interest to
me, ritviks and GBC arguing bitterly about who's the bigger asshole,
throwing shit all over each other. What's the big issue that's being
argued? Are Prabhupada's main students real gurus, or just ritviks,
meaning, are they supposed to be diksa or siksa gurus? May I have your
definitions of the term "guru", please? Because then we'll be able to
see what we're talking about here. The guru isn't supposed to just say
the words, he's supposed to carry the meaning. That meaning hits the
student with such a profound impression, that his roots are shaken,
and the essence within is brought out to the surface. I'm misfortunate
enough never to have had a guru in the physical... I've struggled
through the scriptures, through the wrong interpretations and
illusions, both mine and other people's, and the only guru I had was
that little voice within which told me what's the truth and what's
just bullshit. The truth is what is real, everything else is bullshit.
The reality check. Am I really in touch with the highest of the high,
or am I just imagining things so I could blow my ego out of
proportions? These questions. I had to spank my own ass, and, believe
me, it wasn't a pleasant trip. I was searching for a guru and instead
I found students, the people I guide. For some time I thought that Sai
Baba could be the real thing, until I went to India to be
disappointed. He's good, he knows things, he has laser depth in his
eyes, but he's the same kind as one of my dear friends here in
Croatia. They've probably both studied together in a past life or
something. He doesn't cheat, I think, but it's not the real thing, I
didn't see the depth I expected to see. I expected to see the light I
see on the inside, in him, on the outside, but it wasn't there. I was
following the inner light while searching for it on the outside, maybe
that's the whole point, the search that's made of the goal, I don't
know, but that's how it was for me.
You argue if the GBC bosses are allowed to give initiation? What is
the initiation? I've given it to people, you might want to ask them
how it felt, most of them are on the Internet, that's how we met in
the first place. Believe me, it wasn't formal. If someone is given
permission from above, and he or she _can_ do it, then what's the
issue? Where's the problem? If not, where's the problem, again? What
are you arguing about?
I think the results, fruits of the labor, speak for themselves. Most
guys Prabhupada initiated already left ISKCON. Folks comment it and
say that they've fallen. Maybe, but I don't see it that way. If what
they were doing in ISKCON was the real thing, they would have to be
real shitheads to leave it for something smaller, but you just can't
leave the real thing, you become completely in love with it and you
can't replace it with less. It just wasn't the real thing, their souls
weren't filled with God so they left, disappointed. You can't follow
something that doesn't feel right on the inside, not for long. The
voice within kicks your butt away from it. It's better to do the less
valuable thing out of conviction, than to do the really cool things
without it, to paraphrase Krsna. It's better to be a sinner true to
one's instincts, than a fake saint. It's the truth, the instinct for
the real thing, that leads folks to God. What's real is cool, what
isn't sucks, and the wise folks follow the reality to its origin,
which is God. Those who are close to God are more real, closer to
reality, and it manifests as a big smile, the inner fulfillment. It
can't be faked, and it's dangerous even to try. One just knows it's
there when it is. What am I trying to say? Follow your instincts guys.
If it doesn't work, flush it down the drain, peel the onion down to
the core and find out what's real in it all, and stick to it, don't
let it go. What is it, that fulfills you more than anything else in
the world? Find it, stay in it, and it'll show you God. The thing you
love most, the thing love comes from.
Om Srimad Parama Bhagavate Namah.
Om Sri Narayana Parama Bhagavate Namah.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ratko Jakopec

ratko.jakopec@vz.tel.hr (Ratko Jakopec) wrote:
>>E da imamo samo to, onda bismo se stvarno mogli jebat. :)
>>Postoje unutarnja stanja i metode njihovog pracenja i prozivljavanja,
>>a upravo preko njih se dolazi do Boga, a ne preko procesiranja
>>osjetilnih imputa.
>>Hocu reci da ces prije doci do Boga prateci osjecaj ljubavi ili
>>spoznaje do njegovog izvora, nego razmisljajuci o biti bitka.
>
>Ma da, ja se cijeli dan ucim, a kad se umorim da vise ne mogu misliti,
>onda idem pisati,

:))

>naravno, mislio sam na dostupna iskustva, a ne samo
>osjetna iskustva. Recimo savjest je jedan od puteva za dokazivanje
>Bozje opstojnosti.

Ma vise je to od samo toga, pomocu savjesti se moze jako daleko doci i
u onome sto bi Ti nazvao mistickim iskustvom. Taj osjecaj ispravnosti
postupaka, kad ga dovoljno izostris, u stvari je i kljuc za osjecanje
drugih ljudi okolo, jednostavno tudja stanja pocnes osjecati kao
vlastita i s njima se uskladjivati itd.

>Ipak imaj u vidu da sam ja to pisao u klasicnom filozofskom smislu, a
>ti imas na umu prije ono sto bi se moglo nazvati mistikom.

Ma to sve mora biti povezano, jebes filozofiju bez mistike (a ja bih
cak rekao da jebes i mistiku bez filozofije). Ono sto se filozofskim
putem ustanovi kao ispravno mora se moci provjeriti i osobnim
iskustvom, sto onda ispada kao misticki uvid, kako bi Ti to zvao,
premda to najcesce nije neki posebni vatromet, to misticko iskustvo;
koji puta stvarno zna biti, ali najcesce je to jednostavno
razumijevanje necega, skuzis i jasno Ti je. Recimo skuzis da je Bog tu
i prisutan. :) To je misticko iskustvo ali nije obavezno vatromet,
vatromet nastaje kad tog Boga koji je tu prepoznas i predas mu se u
cijelosti i obozavas ga citavim bicem, onda da vidis vatrometa. :)

>(Mislim, nisti nista krivo rekao, samo eto, nisam se mogao suzdrzati a
>da ne primjetim. Jedno je pitanje sto ja takav kakav sam mogu znati o
>Bogu, a drugo je kako i kuda mogu ici. To je vazno reci jer ima ljudi
>koji vele da o Bogu nista ne mozemo raci dok ne odemo u "visu" svjest,
>a cini se da to ne mora biti tocno.

Cuj, ako filozofskim putem dodjes do ispravnog zakljucka, onda
djelovanjem na osnovu tog zakljucka mora uslijediti misticki uvid -
obavezno. Recimo ako iz postojanja savjesti logicki izvedes nuznost
postojanja Boga, onda osobnim osjecanjem stanja savjesti moras doci do
osobnog osjecanja Boga. To je fakat istina, to sljaka.

>S time nisam htio reci da ne treba
>ici u "visu" svijest i da je nesto reci o Bogu ne znam kakvo
>dostignuce, no nije, ali nekima bi i to bilo.)

:)

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

X-Ftn-To: Darko Majdic

"Darko Majdic" wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote in message
>news:37b934b7.9733410@news.tel.hr...
>> Ja bih volio da navedes primjere yogijskih sustava i njihovih
>> praktikanata o kojima govoris, kako bih znao s cim trebam
>> polemizirati, ovo sve su nekakve nedorecenosti.
>
>U vise navrata kada sam citao spise ucitelja sa istoka nailazio sam na
>tvrdnje u smislu da je svaki covjek sam svoj spasitelj. Tesko cu sada
>pronaci sve te citate u dogledno vrijeme. Malo sam prolistao i jedan
>knjizurak (doduse ne od istocnjaka) zvan Budisticki katekizam, koji bas i
>nije nekakvo reprezentativno djelo, ali u njemu sam nasao takvu tvrdnju, pa
>evo cisto za primjer:
>
>166. P. Da li budisti smatraju Buddhu onim tko nas svojom vlastitom vrlinom
>moz spasiti od posljedica nasih individualnih grijeha?
> O. Ni na koji nacin; covjek mora unaprijedjivati sebe. Sve dok ne spozna
>da ce biti iznova rodjen kao zrtva neznanja i rob neutazenih strasti. (Henry
>S. Olcott, Budisticki katekizam, Znak, Zagreb 1992, str.43.)

Pa, meni se cini da je u kontekstu u kojem je ovo izreceno, tvrdnja
dosta na mjestu, jer predstavlja odgovor na sasvim konkretno pitanje.
Druga je sad stvar da unutar buddhizma postoje razliciti smjerovi,
recimo smjer theravada bi stvarno drzao da nitko covjeka ne moze
spasiti do njega samog, dok ce razliciti mahayana pravci u razlicitoj
mjeri smatrati da covjeku moze stici pomoc iz visih izvora, od visih
blagotvornih sila kakve su recimo bozanstva visih razina, kao i
prosvijetljena bica koja su vec prosla putem, pa je i teologija
djelomicno srocena tako da se oslanja i na prizivanje pomoci takvih
blagotvornih sila. Ali naravno smatranje da se ne treba oslanjati na
sebe i njegovati vrline i uklanjati mane, nego samo ocekivati da ce
sve pasti s neba, drzi se herezom i zabludom.

>Onda nasao sam u tom smislu i neke izreke iz Dhamma-Padam:
>
>160 Svatko je sam svoj zastitnik. Zar bi itko drugi to mogao biti? Tko sobom
>ovlada stjece tesko doseznu zastitu.
>165 ...Svatko se sam od zla suzdrzava i sam sebe prociscava. Cistoca i
>prljavstina od nas samih zavise. Nitko nikog nigdje ne procisti.

Ovo je pak previse udaljeno iz konteksta da bih komentirao, naime same
po sebi ovakve izjave mogu biti i dobre i lose, ovisno u kakav ih se
kontekst smjesti, buduci da se ovdje vise ne kaze nego se kaze. Netko
moze smatrati da u svijetu nema dubljeg reda i da se svatko mora
brinuti sam za sebe, sto je lose, a moze i smatrati da u svijetu ima
dubljeg reda ali da svatko sam mora poduzeti korake da se sa tim
dubljim redom uskladi, sto je dobro.

>Ciljam dakle na sisteme kod kojih razmisljanje o Spasitelju koji ce ti
>darovati spasenje bez tvoga truda (koje ti naravno trebas prihvatiti
>iskreno) drze zabludom. Takve sisteme sam nazvao 'individualistickima'. Ne u
>zelji da kazem da krscanstvo ne priznaje pojedinca ili da zanijecem nekakvo
>zajednistvo sljedbenika istocnih religioznih principa. A ponajmanje da bih
>nesto pljuvao kako su to neki shvatili.

:) 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. :))

>> I madju yogijskim
>> sustavima kao i svudgje ima i onih koji ne valjaju, a medjusobno se ti
>> sustavi radikalno razlikuju, recimo Hare Krishne se vode
>> razmisljanjima koja su totalno suprotna ovome sto si ovdje napisao.
>
>Ma znam. Meni se cini da je taj Srila Prabhupada bio odusevljen krscanskim
>naukom o milosti, ali je i dalje htio ostati u svojoj religiji i privrzen
>svojem Bogu.

Ma to je obicna hrpa gluposti, to je isto kao da ja velim da je Isus
bio odusevljen Bhagavad-gitom i da odatle potjece njegov nauk o
milosti, ali su to ljudi kasnije krivo shvatili. Bezveznjarije. Kao
prvo naucavanje HK je specificno za Bhagavata-puranu i Caitanyino
naucavanje, a to sto ono jako lici na krscanstvo nije zbog toga sto bi
netko nekoga kopirao, nego zato sto su dvije skole neovisno jedna o
drugoj iz istih pocetnih postavki dosle do sasvim slicnih zakljucaka.
Ako velis da postoji Bog koji voli ljude onda ces doci do nauka o
milosti na ovaj ili na onaj nacin, kod krscanstva je zakljucak da je
Bog poslao svojega sina da ih spasi od istocnog grijeha, a kod gaudiya
vaisnava (gdje su HK samo poseban slucaj istih) Bog salje svoje ciste
bhakte da izbavljuju uvjetovane duse iz okova maye, ili pak sam dolazi
u svojim zabavama i radi isto. Jedina razlika je to sto GV ne drze da
bi se Bog ili netko drugi morao zrtvovati da bi nekoga spasio, oni to
bolje definiraju: kazu da osoba u svojim materijalnim djelatnostima
sakuplja svakakvu materijalnu karmu koja je vezuje za materijalni
svijet, a odlukom za Boga i predavanjem ucitelju u inicijaciji predaje
ucitelju svoju proslu karmu i tako od nje postaje slobodna; to je
ekvivalent otkupljenja u krscanstvu. Sto ucitelj radi s tom karmom,
mislim da GV nisu previse definirali jer se bojim da oni o tome jako
malo znaju, to je kod njih jednako stvar forme i imitacije kao i
krstenje kod krscana.

>Onda se dogodilo sto se dogodilo. Sistem utemeljen na nauku o
>milosti, a koji se hoce pravdati spisima kojima je to on htio, nema veze sa
>stvarnoscu.

Bojim se da Ti imas jako malo veze sa stvarnoscu, a jos manje pojma o
Indijskim spisima. Nauk o milosti je tamo bio predmet rasprave dosta
davno, barem u doba Ramanuje, ako ne i ranije.

>> Osim toga, najgori sustavi najcesce insistiraju na spasenju Bozjom
>> miloscu/prihvacanjem Krista/whatever, a neki od najboljih insistiraju
>> na spasenju vlastitim snagama (Lahiri Mahasaya i njegova kriya-yoga,
>> na primjer), pa bi se iz Tvojih teorija mogao izroditi zakljucak koji
>> bas i nisi imao na umu.
>
>E ti si ga sad provalio.

Nisam ga ja nista provalio, nego Ti nista ne kuzis pod milim Bogom.

>Kao prvo jedan krscanin (a to jesam) ne brine puno
>o 'sistemima' u smislu u kojem je yoga nekakav sistem.

Govorim o sistemima u smislu u kojem je krscanstvo jedan sistem, pa bi
krscaninu bilo bolje da o njima brine. Sistem valja ako je
prosvjetljenje onih koji mu pripadaju cesto, a ne valja ako je rijetko
ili se ne desava.

>A drugo tko ce reci
>koji su najbolji, a koji najgori sistemi.

To je barem lako, vidis da su oni koji prakticiraju sistem u kurcu i
zakljucis da sistem ne valja, i isto tako ako vidis da oni koji
prakticiraju sistem valjaju zakljucis da je sistem dobar. Pogledas
recimo ISKCON, vidis kako je sve otislo u kurac, i zakljucis da od
verglanja nekakve mantre nema nikakve koristi i da je takav sustav bez
veze. Onda pogledas nekoliko slicnih sustava koji ne valjaju i izvuces
zakljucke o tome koja je sustina problema, pa zakljucis da se
vjerojatno radi o imitiranju postignuca a ne o stvarnom postignucu, da
se radi o mentalnim i emocionalnim filterima koji bi trebali
nadomjestati stvarno razumijevanje i spoznaju. Kad neki krscanin veli
da je spasen zato sto je prihvatio Krista, i kad HK veli da je spasen
zato sto je prihvatio Krsnu (ili Srila Prabhupadu, ovisno o sekti), i
kad u oba slucaja vidis da se radi o plitkim izjavama bez pozadine i
sadrzaja, onda mozes izvesti zakljucak o tome da su i takav Krist i
takav Krsna samo nekakve pizdarije na astralu bez ikakve vrijednosti,
i da je covjeku bolje bez njih nego s njima.

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

X-Ftn-To: Sinisa Knezevic

"Sinisa Knezevic" wrote:
>>Meni se cini da Ti ciljas na onu foru da
>>krscani funkcioniraju kao zajednica, a tamo neki istocnjaci i crni
>>magi se brinu jedino sami o sebi. Samo sto je to prilicno tanka fora
>>buduci da vecina istocnih pravaca naglasava sangu (priblizno prevedeno
>>kao zajednicu onih koji nastoje na duhovnom razvoju) kao bitnu stvar;
>
>Odnosi li se pojam sanga na zajednicu ljudi koji teze duhovnom kao zatvorenu
>komunu gdje se "cisti" odvajaju "necistih" ili je to pojam koji opisuje
>duhovno zajednistvo osoba koja su na putu duhovnog?Jesu li odnosi u sangi
>uredjenji kastinski?Koji je drustveni angazman pojedinaca iz sange prema
>ostalima unutar zajednice i prema onima izvan nje?Molim te ako znas vise o
>funkcioniranju takvih drustava da mi pojasnis taj pojam.Naime,zanima kakav
>drustveni sustav zagovaraju vedski
>autoriteti,komunizam,socijalizam,poduzetnistvo,kapitalitzam ili nista od
>ovoga.

Ja mislim da su Ti ovo prilicno bezvezna pitanja. Ocito je da svuda
postoje nekakvi dobri i losi nacini shvacanja necega. Sanga (termin
koji se rabi u buddhizmu) ili sat sanga ("zajednica utemeljena na
stvarnosti/istini", sto se rabi u hinduistickim krugovima) predstavlja
zajednicu ljudi koji dijele nekakve poglede po pitanju cilja koji zele
postici, i nekakvog opcenitog svjetonazora, i unutar tog svog
funkcioniranja zele se druziti sa sebi slicnima, kako im druzenje s
nekakvim bezveznjacima ne bi remetilo fokus. E sad, imas to u obliku
sekte koja svojim clanovima ispire mozak s nekakvim forama, pa joj ne
pase da se clanovi sekte nadju u situacijama koje bi mogle dovesti do
toga da pocnu propitivati ispravnost svojih uvjerenja, a imas recimo i
grupu ljudi koji funkcioniraju na nekakav normalan nacin, bave se
yogom, pricaju o svojim iskustvima i slicnom, i ne bi im se dopadalo
da im svaki put kad pricaju o necemu sto su dozivjeli u rijec
podsmjesljivo upada nekakav tip koji za sebe kaze da ne vjeruje u
Boga, a njima se unosi u lice da su ludjaci i da im se prividjaju
stvari. Ocito je da ce radije razgovarati s nekim pametnim, nego
nekome stalno objasnjavati stvari koje se podrazumijevaju kao
temeljne. To je kao da na konvenciju fizicara upadne neka luda baba i
pocne govoriti da su oni svi kreteni jer je Bog stvorio svijet na
ledjima divovske kornjace. Logicno je da bi ju izbacili van i ne bi ju
shvacali ozbiljno, jer samo remeti raspravu a nema sto pametno za
reci. Taj skup fizicara je primjer sange u dobrom smislu.
Recimo ja sam jednom ovdje opisao nesto od svojih opazanja, pa je
dosao onaj Zoran Vranjican i uvrstio to u svoju zbirku gluposti.
Normalno je da ja necu gubiti vrijeme na nekog takvog, nego cu
razgovarati s nekim tko kuzi otprilike o cemu se radi. Sasvim je
logicno da ce iz nekakve zajednice koja se tezi baviti Bogom biti
iskljuceni oni koji se ne zele baviti Bogom, jer ce tamo smetati. To
jest diskriminacija, ali dobra i hvale vrijedna. I na usenetu je
primjenjen princip grupiranja ljudi po podrucjima interesa, pa ce se
jedni sakupljati u hr.rec.automobili, a drugi u hr.fido.religija, i
nitko ne vidi nista problematicno u tome, jer bi inace svi pisali u
hr.misc.

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

orlic@eskola.hfd.hr (Damir Orlic) wrote:
>>>Ako ti Isus kaze da nekoga ubijes onda ga fino ubijes. Mozda ti ne
>>>vidis neki logicni razlog, ali sigurno ima razloga. ;)))))))))))))
>>
>>Ako odbacis logiku, onda to tako nekako u praksi i funkcionira.
>
>A daj mi molim Te, objasni od kakve je onda logike da dopustis da te
>zakucaju na kriz.

Ako je to nacin da postignes ono sto zelis postici, onda je logicno da
tako postupis.

>Kakva je logika okrenuti drugi obraz ili dati i
>drugu kosulju onome tko ti uzme jednu. ;))))))

I to je logicno, ako tako zelis demonstrirati odredjeni stav. Nije
pitanje je li to logicno, nego u kojem kontekstu je logicno.

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

X-Ftn-To: Darko Majdic

"Darko Majdic" wrote:
>Sto se moje upucenosti u istocne sisteme tice upuceniji sam u njih svakako
>vise nego Felix u krscanstvo. Ono od cega sam polazio govoreci o istocnom
>individualizmu jest cinjenca da istocnjaci (koliko god im ucitelj ili sveti
>spisi mogao pomoci u njegovom putu) ne tvrde da je spasenje (u njihovom
>slucaju moksha ili nirvana kod budhista) van njih samih i van njihovih moci.
>Krscani kao primarno i bitno 'sredstvo spasenja' ne uzimaju neki sistem ili
>nekakva djela vec imaju 'osobu spasenja', Isusa iz Nazareta. Yogi se pak
>spasava sredstvima koja spadaju u njegove moci. On oslobodjenje trazi i
>provodi sam, netko mu moze pomoci, nauciti ga, ali ga drugi ne moze
>osloboditi.

Ja bih volio da navedes primjere yogijskih sustava i njihovih
praktikanata o kojima govoris, kako bih znao s cim trebam
polemizirati, ovo sve su nekakve nedorecenosti. I madju yogijskim
sustavima kao i svudgje ima i onih koji ne valjaju, a medjusobno se ti
sustavi radikalno razlikuju, recimo Hare Krishne se vode
razmisljanjima koja su totalno suprotna ovome sto si ovdje napisao.
Oni bi recimo ideju o spasenju vlastitim snagama drzali teskom
herezom, jer oni tvrde da je spasenje moguce samo preko lotosovih
stopala duhovnog ucitelja koji ucenika vodi Krsni, a metodom pjevanja
Bozjeg imena. Najvecem broju yogijskih pravaca u nekoj je mjeri
svojstveno ovo gledanje. Isto tako, sve se moze gledati kao
"nastojanje da se vlastitim snagama postigne prosvjetljenje". Ako
netko ode u crkvu moliti se, to je nekakvo nastojanje vlastitim
snagama. Ako prestane grijesiti i obrati se, to je nastojanje
vlastitim snagama. Pa bih ja iz te perspektive volio znati o cemu Ti
to u stvari govoris, i sto uopce smatras dobrim a sto losim.

Osim toga, najgori sustavi najcesce insistiraju na spasenju Bozjom
miloscu/prihvacanjem Krista/whatever, a neki od najboljih insistiraju
na spasenju vlastitim snagama (Lahiri Mahasaya i njegova kriya-yoga,
na primjer), pa bi se iz Tvojih teorija mogao izroditi zakljucak koji
bas i nisi imao na umu.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ratko Jakopec

ratko.jakopec@vz.tel.hr (Ratko Jakopec) wrote:
>>>>Cuj problem je sto mi ljudi dokaz vezemo uz logiku.
>
>>>A uz sto bi drugo?
>
>>Mozda uz Boga? ;)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
>Ma pusti Boga, on je nedostupan nasim osjetilima, imamo samo um koji
>se u boljem slucaju zna donekle sluziti logikom, da ne velim zdravom
>pamecu i osjetila kojima opazamo okolinu, pa je zgodno vidjeti sto se
>moze time dosegnuti. Ako cemo i biti nezadovoljni takvim stanjem
>stvari i krenuti prema necem boljem, kuda krenuti.

E da imamo samo to, onda bismo se stvarno mogli jebat. :)
Postoje unutarnja stanja i metode njihovog pracenja i prozivljavanja,
a upravo preko njih se dolazi do Boga, a ne preko procesiranja
osjetilnih imputa.
Hocu reci da ces prije doci do Boga prateci osjecaj ljubavi ili
spoznaje do njegovog izvora, nego razmisljajuci o biti bitka.

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

X-Ftn-To: Sinisa Knezevic

"Sinisa Knezevic" wrote:
>Zna li netko postoji li prijevod SB-a na hrvatski a da nije preveden prelo
>HK?Ako postoji gdje se moze nabaviti?

To bih i ja volio znati, ali bojim se da toga nema. Odi na
www.amazon.com i pogledaj za englesku verziju.

>Ako je netko citao prijevod HK-i,koliko je taj vjerodostojan,mislim da nije
>obojen njihovim ideoloskim sranjima?

To je smece od prijevoda, covjek mora prakticki citati sanskrtske
rijeci i prevoditi jednu po jednu da bi skuzio sto tamo stvarno pise,
jer je Prabhupadin prijevod u cijelosti bezvrijedan i pogresan. A da
ne govorimo o tumacenju koje je deset puta gore od prijevoda.

>Jeli Praphupada uopce preveo pravi
>smisao sanskrtskog teksta na engleski jer cini mi se da njegovo potonje
>tumacenje stiha samo ide s ciljem potkrepe njihove ideologije.

Tako nekako, samo jos gore.

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

X-Ftn-To: Ratko Jakopec

ratko.jakopec@vz.tel.hr (Ratko Jakopec) wrote:
>>I sto se desava kad se ponudi protuprimjer? U matematici bi to bilo
>>dovoljno da se teorem odbaci. ;) Dakle ako nadjemo zenu koja je
>>prosvijetljena i nabijemo je takvome kretenu na nos i pitamo ga kako
>>se ona uklapa u njegov pogled na svijet, mislim da bi se on nasao u
>>nebranom grozdju - morao bi ili zakljuciti da je njegov Srimad
>>Bhagavatam srao, ili da ga je on krivo tumacio, a u oba slucaja ce mu
>>ego trpjeti. :)
>
>Ma kurac, da ne bi, malo sutra, pa sto ti je doslo, frajer bi
>konstatirao da ta zena ne pjeva maha mantru, ne tezi drustvu cistih
>bakta i ne voli slusati price o Krisni, i da je prema tome ocigledno
>da nije prosvijetljena. I mos se jebat.

Sad je pitanje definicije prosvjetljenja, valjda ima zena koje su i po
njihovoj definiciji prosvijetljene, osim ako je dio definicije
posjedovanje kurca. :))))

>(Felix bi valjda dodao, ako imas s kim)
>
>:)))))))))))))))

:)))) Je, bas. :))))

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