Hello my friends, as I can see we have a very lively discussion here.
:) I'm sorry I didn't join you sooner, but my news server didn't
convey Muralidhar's invitation to vnn, so I didn't get it until I used
another server. Please accept my apologies. And now, allow me to
answer some of the posts.
----

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member   posted 09-12-1999 10:50 AM           
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The whole problem is really one of impatience. So his own method 
>works for all at the first time? 

I'm puzzled with this statement, because in my statements I never even
once mentioned my method, neither in comparison with harinama japa,
nor otherwise. No, it doesn't work for all. There is a percentage of
people who are unreceptive for shaktipat, and there is a percentage of
those who receive shaktipat and decide to go their own way. There is
also a percentage of people who go their own way during the process.
All of them together, it's about one third of the people who ever
worked with me.

Impatience? But of course. How can one live without God for even a
moment? One can't be patient, there is no time, the time is all gone,
and we bought our death with our birth. We have to reach God now, it
is all lost. There is no other goal to achieve, nothing, all desires
and focus must dwell exclusively on the Lord. How can one wait, if
he's deprived of the only joy? Patience is the virtue of those, who
can be fulfilled with less. A yogi can wait no more.

>How coem we have not yet heard of this bluffer as the next 
>jagad-guru? 

Please restrain yourself from such statements, my friend, because I
can't see them as beneficial to anyone.

>I have been chanting for 30 years and by Krsna's grace a have had 
>the taste for the name possibly once, possibly a few times more. 

Have you considered changing the method? This success rate is
pathetic, in Kundalini-yoga schools it is advised to the disciple to
change the guru and the method if there is not a dramatic improvement
in his consciousness within a year, that's how effective the method
is, and that is what I advise to my students: if you see that you're
not making progress, leave me.

>But I find it dangerous to think that it was all that real and I 
>am getting close, because my guru alaways explained that when you 
>think like that, you are really very far. 

You can get close only if you're making any progress at all.

>So it is certainly possible that one gets a direct experience from 
>once inoffensive chanting of the holy name. But I doubt whether 
>this man has ever tasted it, because as he himself says (and 
>undoubtedly ahs read somewhere) 

:)) Yes, actually I quoted myself, since I write it all the time. :))

>it is so great, you would indeed not really know what to do with 
>it. So if we pick the arguments apart, we see that the criticism 
>he levels against our method are the same as for his own. 

Why do you think that? 

>For if he was so enlightened as he claims, he would be much more 
>compassionate. So you stupid bluffer, why don't you show in your 
>so-called enlightened behaviour a bit more gentleness, and 
>compassion. 

You see, this is not very kind of you, because you probably know that
I wouldn't blow my own horn, one way or the other, and there is nobody
here to speak in my defense. What do you want me to do, give evidence
of my own wonderfulness? ;) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member   posted 09-12-1999 01:14 PM            
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The basic questions I would first ask is that if he accepts Lord 
>Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Ultimate Autocratic 
>Supreme Being, God and that no on else is superior to him. 
>If his answer is yes, 

:) So you would want a binary answer to this question? If you define
Krsna as God, and you define God as Krsna, then there must be
equality, and the answer is yes. However, from my experience, God is
far beyond any definition. God is far too big for human mind to
comprehend. I can know very little about God, because my physical body
limits the range of my insights, but my definition of God would be
that He/She is someone so vast, that my consciousness is build of it,
on it and in it, and the only way of total understanding of God is
total surrender, and understanding by being.

>then the second question will be this. Do you then accept that 
>the Mahamantra is God Himself incarnate in His Namewords and 
>sound vibration form in this age of kali. 

Oh, that's easy, it's a clear no. God's name, in form of words,
invokes certain pictures within spirit, which are associated with the
inner memories of God, and by invoking those memories and blissing out
on them one can attain direct contact with God. This is the clue I
originally left out, and it answers my riddle: a deliberate fault in
my logic, saying that if God is absolute and his name is absolute, and
in absolute there is no quantity, one repetition is as good as
infinite n, and it brings instant realization. That is true, if one
could invoke the clear memory of God through God's name. But because
of the condition of the lower vehicles of spirit (physical, pranic,
astral, mental etc. bodies) a direct leap into the highest God's
aspect isn't possible, consciousness has to be refined, and a specific
method of invocation is necessary in order to start the memories of
the progressively higher states of spirit, eventually leading to
purusa uttama.
God's name isn't absolute, it is absolute in the relative, and in
order for it to work one has to work through the mazes of the mind,
working out the riddles, keeping the Ariadna's line in hand.
Mahamantra, therefore, isn't God, it is, if correctly applied,
Ariadna's line which can bring one out of the labyrinth.

>but for a materialistic reason. Such surrendering is actually 
>better than no surrendering at all. So one who is not surrendering 
>at all can in no way critisize those who are surrendering even in 
>a materialistic way to Krsna. 

That is all nice, if they surrender to Krsna, and not to something
they call Krsna, and God only knows what it is.

>The statement made by the kundalini yogi that it is better one 
>becomes a gross sinful materialist than to become a pretender 
>materialist devotee is a grossly misunderstood one even by 
>materislistic devotees. 

Even if I did say it, it would not be so remote from common sense, but
remember that I did not say it. I said that it is better to stick with
what you can feel as the truth (which is your own dharma) than to try
and follow someone else's dharma, no matter how good it sounds. If you
loose your dharma, your feeling of rightness, your place in the world,
you are in real trouble, because you lost the reality, and the reality
is the most intimate aspect of God: God is the ultimate reality, the
reality above all other realities, and by sticking to what we feel as
real, we will understand progressively deeper aspects of reality until
we eventually reach the highest Lord.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member   posted 09-13-1999 09:05 AM            
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I would still call his bluff. 

You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
:)

>For he cannot even write the Mahamantra as he admits that he cannot 
>'back it up' 

You obviously have a really miserable opinion of mahamantra, if you
choose to give this explanation to my words. I just said that at the
moment of writing I couldn't remember the Highest Purusa, and
therefore if I wrote about it without having it in consciousness, it
would be just a lie, a counterfeit. I'm not really into that, so I
just didn't write it. That says nothing of other instances.

>Analysis always includes a sufficiently large sample. It is 
>obvious that his so-called kundalini-yoga has not brought the 
>expected humility as prescribed in the tantra sastra and that 
>it thus equally fake. 

Humility, is that the thing where ten people spit at me, and I smile
and say "thank you for your kindness"? ;))

>So now the flank lies open I give him a broadside. Once the 
>flight is out of the argument - i.e. ha's come back to earth, 
>can we engage him in sensible discussion.

I suggest you engage me with a six barrel Gatling cannon and 10K
rounds of ammo, that way you will surely end up victorious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jagat
Member   posted 09-13-1999 06:45 PM           
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Now perhaps Danijel is getting a little pleasure putting the fox 
>among the pigeons by giving you these questions. 

It's that my mind is almost completely destroyed from discussions with
worldly-minded people, as Paramahamsa Ramakrsna would say, and I
prefer talking about God to talking about other things, so I thought
that creating grounds for a discussion would be a good start.
Unfortunately, some people think that one who spits hardest, wins. 

>But I think that his basic point is to challenge the credibility of
>chanting by calling into question the results. If one Holy Name can 
>have such wonderful results, why do I see so little coming of it. 
>Indeed, I think this is a legitimate question. Why are the basic 
>Vaishnava qualities in such short supply?

Yes, that was the original point.

>In such a case, we have to review our program. Of course, Danijel 
>would say that any mantra will do. But both of us would agree that 
>we need to chant attentively. Attentive chanting means no aparadhas.
>And he is actually correct: it is better to chant once attentively 
>than to chant 16 rounds unattentively. Quality is better than 
>quality. We do quantity in the hope that it will improve quality. 
>Just like a runner who runs a lot becomes a better runner.

My initial stand was created to provide a good starting ground in a
discussion, where you guys would provide a quality defense of your
method - seeing, in the process, where you got it wrong, and thus
improving. For instance you realize that the point is to love God, and
that you forgot that somewhere along the path, so you just go back to
doing the thing that probably made you join your religious group in
the first place.

>Bhagavatam who had 24 gurus. The point was that if even a 
>prostitute can give us lessons about spiritual life, can not 
>Danijel say something that is meaningful to us?

:))) Unfortunately, I'm of far lower rank than a prostitute, so I'm
afraid that you can't learn anything from me, except what to avoid.
:)) (I start feeling for the poor ol' Lobster from the Kundalini-list
:))

>But we are so insecure in our beliefs that when anyone challenges 
>them, we immediately cry foul! We demonize those who disagree with us. 
>How pitiful. But how much fun for him as he watches you act in this 
>childish way. 

Yes, that's the problem - it's fun in the beginning, seeing the
insecurities in people, but when it turns out that nobody is willing
or capable of discussion, it starts looking ugly.

>There is nothing in Krishna consciousness that says that we are better 
>than anyone else. We believe that Krishna will save us, but he saves 
>those who are worthy in his eyes, so we have to fight to become 
>worthy. 

No, you must love to become worthy. If you have to fight, it must be
based on love. If love for God and all beings is your only foundation,
then you are truly free from the lower bonds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member   posted 09-14-1999 12:32 AM           
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>One who grossly challenges like Danijel does, even if an advance 
>devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata speaks to him will become grossly 
>offensive and thereby cause offense on the part of the speaker. 

Oh, so it's OK if I verbally abuse you every time you call me names,
or even if I just feel threatened by something, and I'll still be able
to qualify as an advanced devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata? Wow, I
didn't know that, thanks. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief
Member   posted 09-14-1999 01:30 AM            
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>jana 73, I think a constructive and creative impasse is reached when 
>you categorize another as offensive as real communication and 
>listening then stops as you cease to gain insight into the nature of 
>the conflict as all understanding stops with your judgements.

Thank you, Chief, that was cool. :)

>It is always easy to find fault with another's position as Danijel and 
>yourself have done as you are just bouncing the ping pong ball back 
>and forth. 

Exqueeeeze me, but I just came, he did all the ping, now I'm doing the
pong. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member   posted 09-14-1999 09:41 AM            
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>That concept of saying the devotees have NEVER chanted once is more 
>upsurd than if he said that they chanted only once. The point is that 
>is never the case where a devotee never chanted. If they say ISKCON 
>means International Society For Krsna Consciousness this means they 
>have chanted. 

:)) If someone is the member of the Catholic Church, he must have seen
Christ, because that's the guy hanging on the cross behind the altar.
Come on. The essence is one thing, the symbol that represents it is
the other. 

>If they say the they are Hare Krsna devotees they have 
>chanted. If they chant one round, or half round, or quarter round they 
>have chanted. 

:))) I knew a drunken gentleman who said God's name at least hundred
of times every day, in all his curses. He mentioned all the saints he
knew, as well. He must have been so enlightened. :) After dying from
alcohol, he must have gone to heaven, because all his thoughts dwelt
on the Lord. ;)

A question: what does it mean to say God's name?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarun Krsnadas
Member   posted 09-14-1999 05:46 PM           
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Where is Danijel now & what were his original statements? where can I 
>find them?

I'm in Zagreb, Croatia. Want a full address? ;) 
The original statements can be found on alt.religion.vaisnava, on some
server with longer memory, like www.deja.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
gHari
Member   posted 09-16-1999 12:59 AM           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a Prabhupada quote)
>Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter dated 
>Feb. 21, 1968, and I am glad to learn that you had some discussions 
>with some non-devotees. You can take it for granted that non-devotee 
>class who is not in Krishna Conciousness as we are teaching are all 
>great fools never mind how ever they may advertise themselves as 
>meditators, yogis, philosophers, religionists, and so on. 

Yes, children, they are all idiots, don't listen to them.

>We are 
>presenting a scientific program of God conciousness on the basis of 
>the highest authority, Bhagavad-gita. 

And the scientific authority must never be disputed. :)

>For a preacher there are four 
>principles to be followed. One, he must be fully surrendered to 
>Krishna. 

And I, of course, know Krishna and I know who is fully surrendered.
The ones who chant "hare krishna", wear tilaka, sikha and dhoti are
surrendered to Krishna, the others are not. 

>Two, intimately in friendly relationship with devotees trying 
>to elevate conditioned living entities to Kr