soybean2k@stop.hotmail.com wrote:
>> others. He saw "mayavadis", "mudhas", "voidists", "demons" and other
>> "impure" beings all over the world. He didn't see the perfection in
>> people and in God's work, instead he thrived on fault-finding and
>> negativity. He created a self-serving cult of people who think that
>> they are superior to others, who preach to others what they themselves
>> most need to learn, and he generally fucked up things. I took the
>> liberty to express a view that he continued to do after death what he
>> did in life, and that is forming judgments and limiting the world to
>> fit his limited mind. You would probably call that state heaven, but
>> for me it is hell, and I name it as I see it.
>
>If I can just be blunt for a minute: this is the same annoying hippie
>"reasoning" to which Srila Prabhupada was and is such a welcome relief.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your opinion on Prabhupada; as a matter
of fact, I don't even see him as a figure of any importance
whatsoever: his teachings found a fertile ground in the hippie era,
but it was soon analyzed and rejected as inferior, by everyone but a
handful of fanatics. The numbers seem to speak for themselves, since a
large number of his disciples already left ISKCON, seeing it as a
failure. Besides, I fail to notice the hippie reasoning in my
arguments; as before, you again put words in my mouth and misinterpret
my arguments in some strange way that seems logical to you, because
you find some similarity with something else that you read somewhere,
but that superficial attitude is of no help in a serious discussion. 

>It is a real pity to see that even a relatively keen mind like
>that with which Krsna has supplied Danijel cannot resist the attraction
>of such bargain-basement philosophizing. Born of adolescent fantasies
>of excess and overindulgence (which Danijel's website simply
>substitutes with a spirituality one "feels in one's body as a
>ray of light," etc), 

You can attempt to underestimate my teachings, but that will not
decrease their value. If you are so good at analyzing people's
motivations, why don't you reverse your scope and direct it at
yourself? You might end up gaining a substantial benefit from such a
change. Try to see your motivations for adopting a Hare Krishna
philosophy, which is a mental prison of rules, regulations and
limitations? Do you really think that you can hide in such a small
world? If you close your mind in a can, the vast universe will still
exist on the outside. Can you accept its challenge? Can you drop the
imitations and breathe in the world that has no walls anywhere?

>this philosophy holds that "right," "wrong,"
>"recommended," "not recommended," "good," "bad," and most other
>terms that can be expressed as binary relationships are only stumbling
>blocks for weak minds, and that advanced servants of God cast
>such oppositions aside, having "transcended the material." 

That is, of course, true. Those who know have God's presence as a
guide, and such a guide is far more reliable than a book of
regulations. After all, the teachings of Jesus are all about the Holy
Spirit, who carves the Law into people's hearts; the higher love that
does no harm, with or without the regulations. In such a case
regulations are dropped as superficial - of what good is a bottle of
water if you are swimming in a pure mountain lake? A bottle of water
is needed if you travel through a spiritual desert. Likewise, the
regulations are for the spiritually weak, who lack the higher
guidance.

>I'm sure
>that matajis who were around in the late '60s and early '70s will
>be happy to remind you that when you're alone in a room with a guy who's
>"transcended the material," it's best to know where all the exits
>are.

The fact that there are people who proclaimed themselves liberated and
lied doesn't mean that there are no really liberated people. I, for
instance, don't have a regulation which would forbid my students to
eat meat. They are all vegetarians. Why? Because meat interferes with
their system so they were naturally inclined to drop it. Likewise, I
have no other rules or regulations. How do you think my students
behave? 
You think that the world will end if you remove the walls. On the
contrary, you might then begin to really live. 

>As I've said before, such "how you feel about it is what counts"
>reasoning has captured the imagination of central and Western
>Europe. 

Here you go again. This fog machine of yours doesn't work, try a
better approach.

> I don't even think
> that one can go to hell in any other way except by personal choice
>
>cannot be reconciled with
>
> Of course, they don't think that they are in hell, they think
> that they are in a favorable condition
>
>no matter how hard you try, 

Why not? Is your mind so damaged by Prabhupada's philosophy that even
that simple task is beyond it? ;)
It really is simple: if there is resonance between the inner and the
outer reality, then the outer reality isn't seen as a problem; if you
have hell in your spirit, and at the same time you have hell as your
outer environment, you won't perceive that condition as hellish, you
will perceive it as normal. So it's really about subject's attitude. A
person whose spirit is demonic will see the ideal circumstances as
hell, because it doesn't reflect his malice; he will then try to
"improve" the environment according to his vision of the ideal world.
Bad guys don't think that they're bad, they think that everyone else
is, and that they are the cure to the world. I never saw a really
malicious type who was _aware_ of his malice, they all think that they
are really doing something positive. Those who are aware of their
malice are usually saints.
Take an example of two drunken thieves and murderers who like to dwell
in some dark pit filled with cigarette smoke and violence. Will they
say that they are in hell? No, most likely they will say that they are
really cool, and everybody else has to learn from them or die. That's
your proof. They didn't get to that foul pit by force, they came there
and they stay there by personal choice, and their subjective opinion
of their environment is that it is not hellish. They can't perceive it
as such because they themselves are demons, and demons think that hell
is an ideal environment that allows them to express themselves
according to their nature. Did I paint the picture well enough, or do
I get to use the A0 paper and really bright paint? ;)

>but you're only playing with language there --

No, that is what you are doing, but it doesn't help you much.

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