Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a select group. Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit since your first posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like. You seem to be getting "smoother..." and more settled down, as to your energy field; although some work remains to be done. http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" <raviyogi@...> wrote: > > > > Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas > are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you > Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google > images. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They > > state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as > > long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's > > doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru. > > ... > > The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, > > and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That > > message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the > > Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, > > Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired > > Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of > > non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls > > "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism". > > ... > > Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement > > that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a > > phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: > > It's.... > > ... > > "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form" > > > > That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, > > "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver > > is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha > > Guru....only the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru > > is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or > > white...just the same old critter but differing stripes). > > ... > > OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were > > a "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH. > > Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the > > evidence that Krishna is "Bhagavan"? > > ... > > In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme > > Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more. > > ... > > Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhh....everything > > is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the > > Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is > > not "more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff. > > ... > > Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is > > pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme > > Personality of Godhead". Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has > > form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE > > MAN. > > ... > > Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based > > on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" > > (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the > > Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you.... > > ... > > See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", > > replacing that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's > > usage of "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally > > faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE > > Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form. > > ... > > Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental > > Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any > > Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even > > Hitler. So go figure. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - > > > > the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) > > > > claims Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from > > > > Scriptures, what's the evidence? > > > > > > > > > You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. > > > He didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > > > > > This is what he said: > > > > > > "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual is the Absolute > > > personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very > > > vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating > > > answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to > > > understand. > > > > > > "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the > > > two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy > > > scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this > > > principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it. > > > > > > "There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then > > > explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we > > > can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. > > > > > > And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, > > > simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan. > > > > > > "Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... > > > the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. > > > > > > "Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the > > > heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we > > > actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to > > > connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give > > > power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. > > > > > > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form." > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's > > > since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the > > > impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. > > > Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a > > > devotee of Kali. > > > > ... > > > > However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in > > > > a form of "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no > > > > evidence that Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. > > > > Again, there's no evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the > > > > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > > > ... > > > > The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare > > > > Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman > > > > Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it. > > > > ... > > > > Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. > > > > But should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. > > > > Goddesses such as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": > > > > Krishna, YHVH, Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on > > > > testosterone rather than Soma. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is > > > > > > not the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nowhere in the interview was that claimed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from > > > > > merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship > > > > > with one of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be. > > > > > > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick > > > > > > > Archer - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other > > > > > > > day who > > > > > > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind > > > > > > > of in > > > > > > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of > > > > > > > teachers > > > > > > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very > > > > > > > little > > > > > > > talk of God among them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no > > > > > > > sense > > > > > > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she > > > > > > > said, > > > > > > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great > > > > > > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > allure that I expected it to have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had > > > > > > > was not > > > > > > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or > > > > > > > realization or > > > > > > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's > > > > > > > more to > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one > > > > > > > every week, > > > > > > > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak > > > > > > > much of > > > > > > > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some > > > > > > > sort. And > > > > > > > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps > > > > > > > there's > > > > > > > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will > > > > > > > become > > > > > > > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes > > > > > > > on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly > > > > > > > be any > > > > > > > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me > > > > > > > anyway, > > > > > > > it's only half the package and there's more to be known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting > > > > > > > deeper > > > > > > > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same > > > > > > > dilemma > > > > > > > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey > > > > > > > Home' > > > > > > > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of > > > > > > > compassion ans > > > > > > > self-control and enlightenment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very > > > > > > > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate > > > > > > > loving > > > > > > > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these > > > > > > > schools, > > > > > > > and the many variations among these schools. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really > > > > > > > seeking. And > > > > > > > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me > > > > > > > when I > > > > > > > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual > > > > > > > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I > > > > > > > would get > > > > > > > very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent > > > > > > > opposing side. > > > > > > > And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a > > > > > > > whole line > > > > > > > of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > you a little piece of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick: Please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites > > > > > > > verse > > > > > > > in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute > > > > > > > Truth we > > > > > > > can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute > > > > > > > Truth. And > > > > > > > according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, > > > > > > > simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and > > > > > > > Bhagawan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which > > > > > > > is... > > > > > > > the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one > > > > > > > Absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated > > > > > > > within the > > > > > > > heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition > > > > > > > when we > > > > > > > actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rick: The Personal aspect of God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God just like the > > > > > > > sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's > > > > > > > all-pervading, > > > > > > > it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously > > > > > > > existing with > > > > > > > the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, > > > > > > > but God > > > > > > > is infinite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is > > > > > > > also a > > > > > > > limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the > > > > > > > Lord, > > > > > > > or Bhagawan is eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not material. It's not conceivable. Like I have eyes, and > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > my eyes can only see a certain distance, my eyes are limited. So > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > will say for God to be unlimited he has to have no eyes. The > > > > > > > Bhakti > > > > > > > scriptures say that God has eyes but God's eyes can see all > > > > > > > things at > > > > > > > all times everywhere. Now we may say, how is that possiblebut the > > > > > > > Bhakti > > > > > > > scriptures say that the Absolute is beyong the limits of what we > > > > > > > consider possible otherwise what's the use of Him being the > > > > > > > Absolute? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, for those who seek this mukti, or this eternal freedom from > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > suffering, from all pain, from all ego, the ecstacy of mukti is > > > > > > > the goal > > > > > > > of those who seek the non-dual aspect of the Absolute. And the > > > > > > > goal of > > > > > > > those who seek the personal aspect is 'prema' which means Divine > > > > > > > love > > > > > > > based on intimate, loving relationships which are forever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Vedas explain that beyond this material creation there's the > > > > > > > spiritual sky which is the all-pervading Brahman. Then there is > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > many spiritual planets within the spiritual sky where there are > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > different aspects of God; Ram, Shiva, Krishna. These different > > > > > > > aspects > > > > > > > of God are eternally existing and exchanging eternal unlimited > > > > > > > loving > > > > > > > relationships with their devotees. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Radhanath Swami recites a verse and explains it as expressing > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > are inconceivably one with God and different from God. God is > > > > > > > inconceivably personal and impersonal and according to how we > > > > > > > approach the Lord, the Lord will reveal accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this was very important to me because I met people who > > > > > > > worship Ram, > > > > > > > who worship Krishna in a very very personal way and their goal in > > > > > > > life > > > > > > > was to have eternal loving relationship with the person of God. > > > > > > > And I > > > > > > > met others who wanted to go beyong all form and enter into this > > > > > > > all-pervading Oneness. And both sides, they were great saints. > > > > > > > But in my > > > > > > > heart, I was pulled toward prema toward this eternal sweet, > > > > > > > loving > > > > > > > relationship that we can eternally have with Bhagawan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~ The complete interview along with a brief bio of Radhanath > > > > > > > Swami can > > > > > > > be seen here: http://batgap.com/radhanath-swami/ > > > > > > > <http://batgap.com/radhanath-swami/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
