Lord Krishna
Rajneesh
I recently talked over the phone to a monastic counsellor at SRF
headquarters. During the course of the conversation he mentioned that
Lord Krishna, in his previous births, was just an ordinary mortal like
most of us and, as a result of spiritual practise, became a liberated
soul and Master. However I choose to disagree here. I believe that
Lord Krishna was an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead
and didn't have to ascend through spiritual practise to become a
realized soul.. (Although I didn't argue over this point with the
counsellor.) I would like to know others' opinions on this matter.
Namaste,
Rajneesh
Kriya Yogi
than that I don't really see any difference. Avatars are
manifestations of cosmic consciousness. The only 'mortal' thing you
can find in an avatar is the body (unless he chooses otherwise for
some particular reason regarding his mission), it really makes no
difference for them.
rajnees...@hotmail.com (Rajneesh) wrote in message news:<66ae174f.03072...@posting.google.com>...
seeker
Yogananda said Krishna is real, that he actually lived and worked many
miracles. I would believe him over you any day!
Your mere opinion has no validity compared to his testament of the
truth about the life of Krishna. You will continue to remain a "Doctor
of Delusion" until you base your statements on convictions acquired
through direct experience.
Spiderman is indeed a fiction but its silly to compare Krishna to that
kind of thing. Do you believe Jesus was made up as well? Or that the
stories of his miracles were contrived or exaggarated?
It is a grave mistake to attempt to lead people along the spiritual
path when your own attainment is sadly lacking. Be careful or you will
pay for it dearly.
To know the ins and outs of all the various kriyas intellectualy or
perhaps through a little practice does not signify you have that
authority to guide or teach others. Along with proficiency in
performing the technique, you have to develop the true spirit of
kriya; humility, surrender and perseverance. And above all, the
shelter of a true guru!
Sometimes a master may behave in seemingly contradictory ways in order
to teach some spiritual truth but you are not of that calibre in your
present state. Your arrogance and ruthless critiques on these boards
are rather the result of some mental inharmony. It is certainly not
wisdom.
You like to correct others' misuse of English. You should go and teach
that instead of pretending to be a guru. At least then you would be
doing some practical good.
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> Krishna is a Hindu mythological character. You're not supposed to take
> the Mahabharata (of which the Gita is just a chapter) literally, it's
> just an epic. Do you really believe all those fantastic stories like
> lifting a hill and swallowing a river as facts? Do you believe that
> Spiderman is real and perhaps one night you'll get to see him
> web-swinging away in skyscrapers? Transcend the characters and churn
> the sacred message. You're reading too much ISKCON materials.
>
> rajnees...@hotmail.com (Rajneesh) wrote in message news:<66ae174f.03072...@posting.google.com>...
Swami Dâ Prem
seeker wrote:
> Daryl,
>
> Yogananda said Krishna is real, that he actually lived and worked many
> miracles. I would believe him over you any day!
And Yogananda said he was Arjuna and that Babaji was Krishna. Of course
he is going to say Krishna is real, because if that is the case, then
you will believe him that he was Arjuna in a former life. If Krishna is
myth, then Yogananda wasn't Arjuna and he was lying. His story falls
apart. See?
> Your mere opinion has no validity compared to his testament of the
> truth about the life of Krishna.
It's not mere opinion, it's fact. Scholars already know that the
Bhagavad Gita is part of the epic story, the Mahabharata. The
Mahabharata is fiction, not non-fiction.
You will continue to remain a "Doctor
> of Delusion" until you base your statements on convictions acquired
> through direct experience.
Did you have the direct experience that Krishna is real? I don't think
so; that makes you a "Doctor of Delusion", not Brahman-Atmananda. You
are a hypocrite! You should be more careful with your words, lest you
fall into your own self-created traps.
Brahman-Atmananda's judgement is based on scholars knowing the
difference between an epic story and history. Did you really think
Krishna was blue? Nya ha ha ha har!!!
>
> Spiderman is indeed a fiction but its silly to compare Krishna to that
> kind of thing.
Why? One is a blue character with superpowers, and the other is red
with superpowers.
> Do you believe Jesus was made up as well? Or that the
> stories of his miracles were contrived or exaggarated?
No, Lord Jesus Christ lived, walked and taught on this earth plane, then
ascended, taking his physical body with him.
> It is a grave mistake to attempt to lead people along the spiritual
> path when your own attainment is sadly lacking.
You claim it is "sadly lacking" because you don't agree with
Brahman-Atmananda. His statements have nothing to do with his spiritual
evolution or attainments. As well, his statements are based on the
logic that scholars use to know what is true history and what is
make-believe.
Be careful or you will
> pay for it dearly.
Are you going to be the one to make him pay for it? Because if you have
beef with him, I will surely stick my neck out for him and take whatever
you want to give him. I'll take whatever "punishment" you wish to dish
out. Come on big man!
> To know the ins and outs of all the various kriyas intellectualy or
> perhaps through a little practice does not signify you have that
> authority to guide or teach others.
No, you should have practiced them, especially the main Kriya. But,
Brahman-Atmananda doesn't just know it intellectually. All
Brahman-Atman Yogins throughout the world know it intellectually and
practically. Knowing the Kriyas without practice won't get anyone
anywhere. That is why we call it BAY Sadhana (Brahman-Atman Yoga
Spiritual Practice). We practice the Kriyas with full faith, love and
devotional surrender to God Brahman, the One Great Power.
By the way: it is Brahman alone who gives authority to His teachers to
teach. Without the blessings of Brahman, no one can rightfully be a
true guru.
Along with proficiency in
> performing the technique, you have to develop the true spirit of
> kriya; humility, surrender and perseverance. And above all, the
> shelter of a true guru!
Yes, of course one needs these. You act like he doesn't have these.
Also, your Kriya has to be correct. There are many people teaching
Kriya that doesn't teach correct Kriya. If you don't have Proper Kriya,
then you can practice and have those examples of true spirit and you
won't become liberated. You will die and be born again, searching for
God's Secret Key.
> Sometimes a master may behave in seemingly contradictory ways in order
> to teach some spiritual truth but you are not of that calibre in your
> present state.
Stop projecting this image on my guru.
>Your arrogance and ruthless critiques on these boards
> are rather the result of some mental inharmony.
No, they result from him seeing idiots (i.e. you) abound on this
newsgroup. When you see someone doing something incorrect, you point
out their faults, so they can learn.
>It is certainly not
> wisdom.
What is it? Do you even know what wisdom is? Would you know wisdom if
it was right in front of you? Would you know a teacher full of wisdom
if you saw him? Can you truthfully say "yes" to any of these?
> You like to correct others' misuse of English. You should go and teach
> that instead of pretending to be a guru.
Well, maybe he will take you up on the offer of teaching English. Would
you like to be his first paying customer?
And for that "pretending to be a guru" remark, there is no pretending.
He is being a guru to others, and one of those is me. I'm proud to say
Sat-Guru Da Brahman-Atmananda is my guru. I wouldn't give him up for
anything, even if all the world hated him. Okay? Got that?
I don't tolerate people badmouthing my guru, so if you make remarks
about him or towards him, you can expect to hear from me too. Okay?
You got that buddy? Good!
At least then you would be
> doing some practical good.
Oh, and what practical good are you producing? Sitting on your thumb
while typing with the other hand doesn't count.
Stoltz
Personality of Godhead - I suppose only a person that has God
consciousness can know that for sure. (i.e. for someone to be able to
say, with authority, for sure that someone else is the personality of
the Godhead - then that person would have to have God consciousness
themselves ...)
The statement definitely seems true given my limited experience.
On the other hand, by definition, no thing in the universe is separate
from or beyond the control/power of the Godhead - for if there were
anything manifested that was beyond the control/power of Godhead -
then the Godhead would not be omnipotent and omnipresent - which goes
against the defintion of what God is.
Hence - you and I, must be a part of God - for if we could separate
ourselves from God, then God would not be God. Being part of God,
what defines what we are is the boundary we attribute to ourselves.
For in God, since all is one, then all boundaries are imaginary to God
- it is only in *OUR* ego that we perceive ourself as being distinct
from Godhead.
That being said - one can quibble endlessly about who Krishna was, but
don't you think it is a far better question to find out who you are ?
One last thing. To qualify as a personality of the Godhead, Krishna
*MUST* have "ascended" through spiritual practice. After all, since
Godhead exists in us - if we ascend, so does Krishna, because
everything that is in us, is in the Godhead. To reiterate, since the
Godhead is conscious of our ascending awareness, then - in some
respect, Godhead is ascending with us.
You might say, yes I agree, but we are deluded and Krishna never was
deluded. But, since time is not real, can you honestly say that you
are deluded ? Think about it, if our soul consciousness exists beyond
the dualities of space and time, then - since we will all eventually
become enlightened in the "future", then we are already enlightened
now. For to soul, time does not exist. For soul, all its
incarnations - past, present and future - have already happened, are
happening now, and will happen. For soul already knows what "will"
happen -it just hasn't placed its attention on it yet.
Of all the delusions that exist - time is the hardest one to shake.
Stoltz
rajnees...@hotmail.com (Rajneesh) wrote in message news:<66ae174f.03072...@posting.google.com>...
rand1...@webtv.net
liar by Sister Atmananda. He claims that Krishna is a myth and that
this is based on the conclusions of many noted scholars. What
scholars? A group of winos with the Cliff Notes to the Gita? It has
been quite transparent for some time that this Dr. Quack and his
entourage of a mutant sexually abused teenager, a Bulldyke in a nursing
home and his Swami valet Mr. J Pee Pee of Arizona that serves as the
Howdy Dowdy for this small group of demented and dangerous radicals has
gone to far. For these sphincter muscles to deem an Avatar like
Yogananda as a liar based on the opinions of this half breed (Chinese
and Philipino Dago) Sister Atmananda is nothing short of an outrage. The
contents of their responses and their noodle brain opinions simply
validate that BAY (BUGERS ARE YOURS)) are nothing but a tiny group of
Charles Mansion types without the balls of a homosexual titsie fly.
"Nay ha ha ha har". What the fuck is that supposed mean. Is that your
impression Curley of the 3 Stooges? Or perhaps Mr. J Pee Pee this is
your new version Sanskrit? Think about it! Can anyone imagine
legitimate Yoga organizations such as SRF, Ananda, CSA or any group that
purports to champion the science of yoga representing themselves in a
public forum in the disgraceful manner in which they have. Is it not
peculiar that Sister Atmananda will not directly respond to the MIGHTY
RAND himself? WHY? Because he is a coward and a degenerate that hides
behind the kindergarten quality post of a dirty old man with the
sophistication of a shoe shine boy! For Sister Atmananda to make claim
to the title of "GURU" is not only disgusting but indicates the pathetic
state of mind of this lunatic. This demonstrates quite humorously their
lack of intelligence and attitude that "We are the only the only ones
that are correct" dogma. And I agree.....Sister Atmananda ( as
illiterate as he is ) would serve this world much better as the
supervisor of spelling at a Whorehouse for Eskimos than his fraudulent
claim that she is a Doctor and a Swami. I put the questions to these
perverts again: A Dr. of what scab brain?....A goat Urinologist? And
what wackco would initiate a twit like this rat fuck as a Swami.
Basil's Peckerworths Correspondence School of Swamis, Medical
Transcriptionist and Hedge Timmers? Swami JP says that Sister
Atmananda's conclusions of the unreality of Krishna is not based on the
Sister's "spiritual evolution and attainments". What spiritual
evolution and attainments? Where are they? Where is he hiding them?
Please bring to our attention 2 or 3 examples of his spiritual
experiences........by the way fesces breath, sucking the cock of a
teenage webmaster is not a considered any form of spiritual attainment
under the Geneva Conventions of War. Yes Mr. Cumananda......you pricks
have defied the MIGHTY RAND AGAIN and for the final time. I have been
divinely commanded to dismantle your "International" cadre of thieves
and scam artist. Your days are numbered! I have found out where your
Sister Atmananda is hiding. A simple internet query of the YWCAs
natiomnally turned him up in Fleaville Texas. This pansy is works as a
janitor for the local office of Scientology. When I find him I am going
to 5th degree one of their audit machines up his ass. The pack of you
mutts should drop to your knees and beg God's forgiveness. I know that
this will be a difficult task for you flakes as when you normally drop
to your knees it is usually to suck the cock of a helpless child or a
retarded primate.
PROJECT "BAY FLUSH" WILL COMMENCE IN 48 hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By next Monday these sumbags will be out of business for good! THE
MIGHTY RAND WILL BE PERSONALLY CONFRONTING THESE 4 MISSING LINKS AND
WITH HIS MASTERY OF THE DIVINE POWERS will step on these worms for the
last time and purify the stench of these soon to be "convicts" for good.
Base on Prophecy THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SEEN THE FUTURE of these misfits:
Sister Atmananda, after serving an appropriate sentence in a Federal
Institution will become an underwater tour guide for a number of
nationally know septic tank manufacturers.
Mr. J. Pee Pee (Swami Cumananda), upon release from the Arizona
Institution for the Criminally Insane and Dumb will move to China town
in San Fancisissyco to become successful importer of pork fried rice and
heroin.
Ms Sugerbum will get the lead role in the new NBC series "American
Midol".
The sexually abused Thomson fairly will not be sentenced to any jail
time as he is the only one of the bunch that is more of a victim than
participant. This young Downs Syndrome survivor will rent his head out
as a bowling ball and make a decent living.
Before any of these predications come to fruition this BAY mob (BUGGERS
ARE YOURS) will feel the pain of THE MIGHTY RANDS SPANKOMATIC MACHINE.
One last question that I would personally like to address to Sister
Atmananda before I start to implement PROJECT BAY FLUSH......Did I spell
"FUCK YOU" correctley?
THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!
Swami Dâ Prem
Yes, this is a very good question. Everyone should find the answer to
this question. And they should do it through practical experience.
rand1...@webtv.net
Or perhaps in the case of Sister Atmananda, his immediate Siamese twins
joined at each others rectums and BAY (BUGERS ARE YOURS) should pose the
question, WHO ARE WE NOT:
1. You are not a legitimate yoga organization.
2. You do not have a anything more than a "self proclaimed" Guru who
says he had an encounter with a being of light (the effects of to much
hemp) and refuses to name the authorized individual that initiated him
into a Swami.
3. You do not have a leader who can communicate with his dead
girlfriend at will as he claims. Most likely it is a 900 sex line
directly to Hell.
4. You do not have a path which fosters respect and tolerance for
others.
5 You do not have any claim to use the title Swami because it was given
to you by a mentally unstable charlatan.
6. You do not have a leader that has yet to recognized that he has a
serious
"anger management" condition and should seek professional medical
assistance.
7. You do not have any evidence that your organization is comprise of
more than a few radicals.
8. You do not have a clue to what the word respect means.
9. You and BAY (BUGERS ARE YOURS)
do not possess any spiritual qualities at all as demonstrated in your
contempt filled post, the unwillingness to document claims by your "self
professed" Sat-Guru that she has any legitimacy to that title, any proof
that she is a doctor of anything other than bullshit, the address and
telephone numbers of your temples because they do not exist and the
common sense to stop digging your self into a deeper hole of skeptisism.
10. You do not have the respect of any sane person on this board.
Now go take a flying fuck Mr. J Pee Pee and get your ass in the desert
to get some
more peyote for Sissy Atmananda (actually Prozac, Paxil or any of the
new psychiatric meds would help the half breed bitch improve his
apparent mental problems).
rand1...@webtv.net
I am going to tell you for the last time to never ever email me again
and offer me money to stop my postings about Sister Atmananda and his
cronies. If I where starving on the street I wouldn't take a penny from
you turds. Unlike you and your 2 groupies (Sugerbum and the kid with
the basketball sized head) I learned in my youth that TRUTH HAS NO PRICE
TAG ON IT!!!!
seeker
> And Yogananda said he was Arjuna and that Babaji was Krishna. Of course
> he is going to say Krishna is real, because if that is the case, then
> you will believe him that he was Arjuna in a former life. If Krishna is
> myth, then Yogananda wasn't Arjuna and he was lying. His story falls
> apart. See?
You are basing this premise on the same notion that Krishna didnt
exist, so in fact its your argument which falls apart. You yourself
say "if" Krishna is myth, meaning you dont really know; but your
"guru" claims otherwise.
> It's not mere opinion, it's fact. Scholars already know that the
> Bhagavad Gita is part of the epic story, the Mahabharata. The
> Mahabharata is fiction, not non-fiction.
Its not fact, its opinion. We all know the Gita is a part of the
Mahabharata, you dont have to be a scholar to know that. In actual
fact, the Mahabharata is partly fiction, partly non-fiction. Vyasa
used real events and persons. What scholars claim to know as "fact" is
based on evidence they deduce from clues. What God-men like Yogananda
know as truth is evidence based on their actual experience. It seems
you favour the opinions of pundits rather than the nectar of truth
from realized beings. Thats my opinion and very likely it is also
fact.
> Did you have the direct experience that Krishna is real? I don't think
> so; that makes you a "Doctor of Delusion", not Brahman-Atmananda. You
> are a hypocrite! You should be more careful with your words, lest you
> fall into your own self-created traps.
Read my post again. I never stated I knew the truth about Krishna from
direct experience. I stated my opinion that Yogananda's version is
more beleivable to me than Daryl's; since what is Daryl compared to
Yogananda? They may fundamentally be the same Sat-Chit-Ananda but
their degree of unfoldment is miles apart. It is Daryl who is "Doctor
of Delusion", I do not call myself a Doctor since I dont have a PhD.
Daryl does, hence that particular pun about his title.
> Brahman-Atmananda's judgement is based on scholars knowing the
> difference between an epic story and history. Did you really think
> Krishna was blue? Nya ha ha ha har!!!
It is precisely for this reason that Daryl's statements shouldnt be
taken as fact. What scholars "know" is that they dont really know
anything; they can only guess based on the way they interpret whatever
evidence they can discover.
Me personally, I dont think Krishna was blue. That is something that
has been added to His legacy. It is symbollic of His being one with
the Christ Consciousness, which in the spiritual eye comes across as a
beautiful bluish hue.
> Why? One is a blue character with superpowers, and the other is red
> with superpowers.
And you and Daryl are yellow characters with no superpowers!
> You claim it is "sadly lacking" because you don't agree with
> Brahman-Atmananda. His statements have nothing to do with his spiritual
> evolution or attainments. As well, his statements are based on the
> logic that scholars use to know what is true history and what is
> make-believe.
I do not believe this is the case. I feel his statements are based on
an over-inflated sense of self-importance and his inability to allow
others to express their opinions without having him flame them because
of his spiteful nature.
If his statements have nothing to do with his evolution or attainments
as you say, it means he hasnt attained anything. A man of realisation,
like any person, is the sum of his attainments and experiences.
> Are you going to be the one to make him pay for it? Because if you have
> beef with him, I will surely stick my neck out for him and take whatever
> you want to give him. I'll take whatever "punishment" you wish to dish
> out. Come on big man!
No I am not. The law of karma will do that; it is inescapable! Your
immediate thought that I implied I would be the one to punish him by
attempting violence just reflects how base is your own nature
(although your willingness to put yourself on the line in protecting
him shows a little courage :).
> No, you should have practiced them, especially the main Kriya. But,
> Brahman-Atmananda doesn't just know it intellectually. All
> Brahman-Atman Yogins throughout the world know it intellectually and
> practically. Knowing the Kriyas without practice won't get anyone
> anywhere. That is why we call it BAY Sadhana (Brahman-Atman Yoga
> Spiritual Practice). We practice the Kriyas with full faith, love and
> devotional surrender to God Brahman, the One Great Power.
>
> By the way: it is Brahman alone who gives authority to His teachers to
> teach. Without the blessings of Brahman, no one can rightfully be a
> true guru.
You are assuming I do not or have not practiced Kriya. You assume a
lot.
There was a man who Yogananda initiated in Kriya who claimed he had
done a million kriyas; yet his accomplishment in terms of soul-growth
seemed very little because he didnt cultivate the right spirit in
regard to his practice. It isnt we who perform kriya, God is breathing
through us.
By the way: I agree it is God who gives authority to teach and guide
others, God in the form of a Guru or inner vision! Yet I do not
believe Daryl, being a fake, has received this permission.
> Yes, of course one needs these. You act like he doesn't have these.
> Also, your Kriya has to be correct. There are many people teaching
> Kriya that doesn't teach correct Kriya. If you don't have Proper Kriya,
> then you can practice and have those examples of true spirit and you
> won't become liberated. You will die and be born again, searching for
> God's Secret Key.
No. I do not act like he doesnt have them; he betrays it himself in
the way he behaves and the false statements he makes. Correct practice
of Kriya, as Yogananda states, brings about the greatest possible
benefits whereas incorrect practice can bring about aversion to it.
Besides, you may feel great bliss but you still have to learn how to
behave in this world if you want to set an example and lead other
children of God home. Its obvious Daryl hasnt yet mastered this. He
probably doesnt feel great bliss either.
Yes, I may die and be reborn to continue with kriya. I dont see this
as a problem or something to be avoided necessarily. I will do my best
and surrender the result to God.
> No, they result from him seeing idiots (i.e. you) abound on this
> newsgroup. When you see someone doing something incorrect, you point
> out their faults, so they can learn.
It matters in the way you point out faults and how you feel about the
people making the (supposed) mistakes; do you see them as souls in
temporary ignorance or condemn them in the most negative and ruthless
manner (like Daryl and obviously yourself, do). Not only that, but you
have to know what you are talking about in order to be of help. The
blind cannot lead the blind.
Look at Sri Yukteswar: people couldnt handle his incisiveness. They
used to run away, but still they knew he was right and that he wanted
the best for them. I am willing to bet people dont get this kind of
feeling from the way Daryl treats them. Just look on these boards and
you have the evidence.
> What is it? Do you even know what wisdom is? Would you know wisdom if
> it was right in front of you? Would you know a teacher full of wisdom
> if you saw him? Can you truthfully say "yes" to any of these?
Yes I can. I could certainly feel wisdom in the words of Yogananda and
Sri Yukteswar, and measuring by that yardstick, the things Daryl says
are garbage and gobbledigook. And they certainly dont have the ring of
truth most of the time. Besides, what little wisdom he may sometimes
exhibit is too much hidden behind his harsh and caustic approach!
> Well, maybe he will take you up on the offer of teaching English. Would
> you like to be his first paying customer?
No I most certainly would not! I wouldnt have anything to do with him
and his experiments in fraud. Besides, why pay when he does it for
free on these boards?
> And for that "pretending to be a guru" remark, there is no pretending.
> He is being a guru to others, and one of those is me. I'm proud to say
> Sat-Guru Da Brahman-Atmananda is my guru. I wouldn't give him up for
> anything, even if all the world hated him. Okay? Got that?
Your loyalty to him is admirable. He is so fortunate to have you, he
can never know how fortunate. Okay, I got that! Maybe in the end you
will be his teacher.
> I don't tolerate people badmouthing my guru, so if you make remarks
> about him or towards him, you can expect to hear from me too. Okay?
> You got that buddy? Good!
I understand. I dont tolerate it either, so why did Daryl start it off
by saying one of my line of Gurus didnt/doesnt exist?
I knew you would answer my post when I was writing it, so its all
good.
BTW..who died and made you Swami? If it was Daryl you might as well
revoke the title as it means nothing, he not having the authority to
bestow it on you.
In fact, it would only confuse people who expect Swamis to express
something of a genuine spirit and realisation. Do not be like
Kriyananda and try to impose your selfish clinging to ego on sincere
seekers.
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<zyiVa.12496$ff.1316@fed1read01>...
Swami Dâ Prem
seeker wrote:
> "Swami(?)" Da Prem wrote:
>
>
>
>>And Yogananda said he was Arjuna and that Babaji was Krishna. Of course
>>he is going to say Krishna is real, because if that is the case, then
>>you will believe him that he was Arjuna in a former life. If Krishna is
>>myth, then Yogananda wasn't Arjuna and he was lying. His story falls
>>apart. See?
>
>
>
> You are basing this premise on the same notion that Krishna didnt
> exist,
Yes, I am. You are right.
> so in fact its your argument which falls apart.
No, it doesn't. Stating that it falls apart, doesn't mean it falls
apart. Prove that it is falling apart on me. Okay?
> You yourself
> say "if" Krishna is myth, meaning you dont really know; but your
> "guru" claims otherwise.
Yes, I really know. It is something that I've come to realize. Okay?
Got that.
>>It's not mere opinion, it's fact. Scholars already know that the
>>Bhagavad Gita is part of the epic story, the Mahabharata. The
>>Mahabharata is fiction, not non-fiction.
>
>
>
> Its not fact, its opinion.
Later in this message, you say there is evidence, but here, you call it
opinion, not fact. Odd! Don't double-talk. It isn't good for you.
It's like eating a can of worms.
We all know the Gita is a part of the
> Mahabharata, you dont have to be a scholar to know that. In actual
> fact, the Mahabharata is partly fiction, partly non-fiction.
It's all fiction written to inspire those who read it.
> Vyasa used real events and persons.
Name one real event that inspired Vyasa to write something in the Gita
or Mahabharata?
> What scholars claim to know as "fact" is based on evidence they deduce from clues.
Yes, so you admit they have evidence. When you have evidence,
regardless what you think of the evidence or how you perceive the
evidence, it means you have facts that prove something. Got it?
> What God-men like Yogananda
> know as truth is evidence based on their actual experience.
Okay. State one experience that Yogananda had that proves Krishna existed.
> It seems
> you favour the opinions of pundits rather than the nectar of truth
> from realized beings.
No, I favor logic and truth. I do admire Yogananda, but he is wrong on
this one, and so are you for believing him. This arguement is based
only on this, don't try to bring other things about my person into this
matter. Okay?
> Thats my opinion and very likely it is also
> fact.
Yes, you are right about it being your opinion. Now, prove that it is
fact with your evidence. You must have evidence for it to be fact.
I'll give you a few days to imagine something, then we'll let you
present that as "evidence", but surely enough it will fail and won't
hold up in my court.
>
>
>>Did you have the direct experience that Krishna is real? I don't think
>>so; that makes you a "Doctor of Delusion", not Brahman-Atmananda. You
>>are a hypocrite! You should be more careful with your words, lest you
>>fall into your own self-created traps.
>
>
>
> Read my post again. I never stated I knew the truth about Krishna from
> direct experience.
Yes, but you insisted that people have direct experience of things for
them to truly know them. So, now you say you don't have direct
experience of knowing Krishna, so you can't argue with me anymore.
> I stated my opinion that Yogananda's version is
> more beleivable to me than Daryl's;
Yes, all you have is opinion, not facts or evidence to win this debate.
Yours is an dreadful cause. You can't win boy!
> since what is Daryl compared to
> Yogananda?
Huh? Are you trying to compare Yogananda to Brahman-Atmananda now?
> They may fundamentally be the same Sat-Chit-Ananda but
> their degree of unfoldment is miles apart.
Yes, Brahman-Atmananda is in Sat-Chit-Anananda. Thank you for finally
realizing this boy. About time.
> It is Daryl who is "Doctor
> of Delusion",
See? This is double-talk. You raise Brahman-Atmananda up, then you
seek to tear him down. Why do you do this? Make yourself clear boy.
> I do not call myself a Doctor since I dont have a PhD.
> Daryl does, hence that particular pun about his title.
Yes, but a doctor is masterful in something. Hence, the reason I called
you "Doctor of Delusion". I meant you have mastered being delusional.
>
>
>>Brahman-Atmananda's judgement is based on scholars knowing the
>>difference between an epic story and history. Did you really think
>>Krishna was blue? Nya ha ha ha har!!!
>
>
>
> It is precisely for this reason that Daryl's statements shouldnt be
> taken as fact.
Oh, really?
> What scholars "know" is that they dont really know
> anything;
I bet you couldn't get a scholar to repeat that sentence.
they can only guess based on the way they interpret whatever
> evidence they can discover.
Evidence makes it fact. It doesn't matter what they think of the
evidence. Evidence stands as evidence.
> Me personally, I dont think Krishna was blue.
There was no Krishna, so he couldn't be blue.
> That is something that
> has been added to His legacy.
Yes, he is a legacy and myth.
> It is symbollic of His being one with
> the Christ Consciousness, which in the spiritual eye comes across as a
> beautiful bluish hue.
Yes, you are right about this. It's symbolic. And it is a state of
consciousness we all should rise to.
>
>
>>Why? One is a blue character with superpowers, and the other is red
>>with superpowers.
>
>
>
> And you and Daryl are yellow characters with no superpowers!
Nope, we aren't yellow. You can't prove it either. I'm fairly white
myself. See? You are wrong about everything.
>>You claim it is "sadly lacking" because you don't agree with
>>Brahman-Atmananda. His statements have nothing to do with his spiritual
>>evolution or attainments. As well, his statements are based on the
>>logic that scholars use to know what is true history and what is
>>make-believe.
>
>
>
> I do not believe this is the case. I feel his statements are based on
> an over-inflated sense of self-importance and his inability to allow
> others to express their opinions without having him flame them because
> of his spiteful nature.
Yes, this is what you believe, but it doesn't make it so.
> If his statements have nothing to do with his evolution or attainments
> as you say, it means he hasnt attained anything. A man of realisation,
> like any person, is the sum of his attainments and experiences.
Boy! Yoga is about rising about your attainments and detaching from
them. If you remained attached to your attainments, you would have very
little realization. See?
>
>>Are you going to be the one to make him pay for it? Because if you have
>>beef with him, I will surely stick my neck out for him and take whatever
>>you want to give him. I'll take whatever "punishment" you wish to dish
>>out. Come on big man!
>
>
>
> No I am not. The law of karma will do that; it is inescapable! Your
> immediate thought that I implied I would be the one to punish him by
> attempting violence just reflects how base is your own nature
> (although your willingness to put yourself on the line in protecting
> him shows a little courage :).
Then, why make the threats if you know that the law of karma will do
what it will. The law of karma never makes threats, it just acts.
>>No, you should have practiced them, especially the main Kriya. But,
>>Brahman-Atmananda doesn't just know it intellectually. All
>>Brahman-Atman Yogins throughout the world know it intellectually and
>>practically. Knowing the Kriyas without practice won't get anyone
>>anywhere. That is why we call it BAY Sadhana (Brahman-Atman Yoga
>>Spiritual Practice). We practice the Kriyas with full faith, love and
>>devotional surrender to God Brahman, the One Great Power.
>>
>>By the way: it is Brahman alone who gives authority to His teachers to
>>teach. Without the blessings of Brahman, no one can rightfully be a
>>true guru.
>
>
>
> You are assuming I do not or have not practiced Kriya. You assume a
> lot.
Where did I say something that made you think I assume you do not
practice Kriya?
>
> There was a man who Yogananda initiated in Kriya who claimed he had
> done a million kriyas; yet his accomplishment in terms of soul-growth
> seemed very little because he didnt cultivate the right spirit in
> regard to his practice. It isnt we who perform kriya, God is breathing
> through us.
> By the way: I agree it is God who gives authority to teach and guide
> others, God in the form of a Guru or inner vision! Yet I do not
> believe Daryl, being a fake, has received this permission.
Then you are wrong!
>>Yes, of course one needs these. You act like he doesn't have these.
>>Also, your Kriya has to be correct. There are many people teaching
>>Kriya that doesn't teach correct Kriya. If you don't have Proper Kriya,
>>then you can practice and have those examples of true spirit and you
>>won't become liberated. You will die and be born again, searching for
>>God's Secret Key.
>
>
>
> No. I do not act like he doesnt have them; he betrays it himself in
> the way he behaves and the false statements he makes. Correct practice
> of Kriya, as Yogananda states, brings about the greatest possible
> benefits whereas incorrect practice can bring about aversion to it.
> Besides, you may feel great bliss but you still have to learn how to
> behave in this world if you want to set an example and lead other
> children of God home.
Yes, but before you lead the Children of God home, you must weed out the
fools, the frauds, the hypocrites, the spiritual con artists and the
evil doers, thus you leave God's children to suffer in their hands. We
must protect them from these evil doers, lest they fall into their traps.
Its obvious Daryl hasnt yet mastered this. He
> probably doesnt feel great bliss either.
Earlier you said he was in Sat-Chit-Ananda. Do you even know what that
means?
> Yes, I may die and be reborn to continue with kriya. I dont see this
> as a problem or something to be avoided necessarily.
If this is your attitude every lifetime, no wonder you haven't reached a
liberated state yet.
I will do my best
> and surrender the result to God.
You either surrender or you don't.
>
>>No, they result from him seeing idiots (i.e. you) abound on this
>>newsgroup. When you see someone doing something incorrect, you point
>>out their faults, so they can learn.
>
>
>
> It matters in the way you point out faults and how you feel about the
> people making the (supposed) mistakes; do you see them as souls in
> temporary ignorance or condemn them in the most negative and ruthless
> manner (like Daryl and obviously yourself, do).
They are souls making mistakes. This isn't ruthless. If you want to
see a ruthless being, look to Rand. He uses cuss words every other word
to degrade someone without a sound arguement. All the stuff he makes
up, and it comes out of his ass. At least with Brahman-Atmananda and
myself, you have a chance to learn something if you stay in the debate.
> Not only that, but you
> have to know what you are talking about in order to be of help. The
> blind cannot lead the blind.
Yes, I know what I am talking about. Thank you.
> Look at Sri Yukteswar: people couldnt handle his incisiveness. They
> used to run away, but still they knew he was right and that he wanted
> the best for them. I am willing to bet people dont get this kind of
> feeling from the way Daryl treats them. Just look on these boards and
> you have the evidence.
Yeah, some people run away. Some face us, and can't take it. We are
very much like Sri Yukteswar and great yogis like him. Thank you for
pointing that out.
>>What is it? Do you even know what wisdom is? Would you know wisdom if
>>it was right in front of you? Would you know a teacher full of wisdom
>>if you saw him? Can you truthfully say "yes" to any of these?
>
>
>
> Yes I can. I could certainly feel wisdom in the words of Yogananda and
> Sri Yukteswar, and measuring by that yardstick, the things Daryl says
> are garbage and gobbledigook. And they certainly dont have the ring of
> truth most of the time.
They don't for you, because you are trying to argue with him.
Besides, what little wisdom he may sometimes
> exhibit is too much hidden behind his harsh and caustic approach!
Yes, but you already commend him for his Sri Yukteswar approach. What?
You can't handle this approach?
> Your loyalty to him is admirable. He is so fortunate to have you, he
> can never know how fortunate. Okay, I got that! Maybe in the end you
> will be his teacher.
I'm not his teacher, but I'm a teacher to others already.
>>I don't tolerate people badmouthing my guru, so if you make remarks
>>about him or towards him, you can expect to hear from me too. Okay?
>>You got that buddy? Good!
>
>
>
> I understand. I dont tolerate it either, so why did Daryl start it off
> by saying one of my line of Gurus didnt/doesnt exist?
> I knew you would answer my post when I was writing it, so its all
> good.
>
> BTW..who died and made you Swami?
Do you have power and authority to judge the acts of God, and what God does?
seeker
> No, it doesn't. Stating that it falls apart, doesn't mean it falls
> apart. Prove that it is falling apart on me. Okay?
Yes, it does. Stating that it doesnt fall apart, doesnt mean it doesnt
fall apart. Prove that it isnt falling apart on you. Okay?
> Yes, I really know. It is something that I've come to realize. Okay?
> Got that.
I really know you dont really know. Its just something you have come
to believe because it is Daryl's opinion. If you were to actually
realize it, you would either have to have been around at the time of
the Kurukshetra war or hear the truth directly from Krishna's or
Vyasa's lips in superconscious vision, otherwise you know nothing; it
is merely belief.
> Okay?
> Got that.
No, I dont. If you ask a question, you should let the other person
answer it, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.
> Later in this message, you say there is evidence, but here, you call it
> opinion, not fact. Odd! Don't double-talk. It isn't good for you.
> It's like eating a can of worms.
There are different kinds of evidence. You can go into a court of law
and appreciate this. What scholars consider as evidence is what they
interpret/opine (typically in general consensus) about the scriptures
and historical records, yet it wouldnt be correct to say this is 100%
concrete proof, which is another kind of evidence altogether.
Therefore, what they consider as evidence is based primarily on their
interpretation, which means they are expressing their opinion, however
scholarly it might be, on the subject.
Do you suggest that all true scholars of the scriptures and history of
India are of the opinion that Krishna was mere fiction? Of course you
do, because you have made your mind up about the matter. It came from
your "guru" so it must be true after all, and of course all the
scholars through history support that claim (not!). What rubbish!
Please go back to kindergarten..you speak of logic and truth, yet you
are unable to use the same to untangle such an obvious mess within
your own mind.
> It's like eating a can of worms.
Really? Ive never eaten a can of worms, what does it taste like? Are
you sure you're not talking about a can of Daryls?
> It's all fiction written to inspire those who read it.
Say what you like, you cant prove it so it isnt fact!
> Name one real event that inspired Vyasa to write something in the Gita
> or Mahabharata?
Why, the very war of Kurukshetra. There are records of it having taken
place which also mention the very place in India where it occured.
> Yes, so you admit they have evidence. When you have evidence,
> regardless what you think of the evidence or how you perceive the
> evidence, it means you have facts that prove something. Got it?
Evidence as it relates to interpreting scriptures and even such
far-reaching historical documents (which can be wrong or incomplete)
can never be considered as concrete fact. What I admit to is that they
(which doesnt mean all of them) have made up their minds about
something based on what they have been able to deduce from what they
have read. Thats about it. It doesnt mean that Krishna didnt exist
just because they say so, or just because Daryl or you say so.
> Okay. State one experience that Yogananda had that proves Krishna existed.
He had the vision of Krishna when he was a child, for one. There are
also many more, some of which are related in his books and speeches,
including Whispers From Eternity and The Divine Romance, etc, etc.
There are many.
He also said he had been Arjuna. Obviously he had some experience(s)
that would have confirmed this, unless you consider him to be a liar
and a fraud..
> I do admire Yogananda, but he is wrong on
> this one, and so are you for believing him.
How can you admire someone you dont think is telling the truth?
Yogananda was known to be a man who believed in knowledge based on
direct experience and who believed in having a consistently solid
character. Why would he contradict his own principles to claim such a
thing?
> Yes, but you insisted that people have direct experience of things for
> them to truly know them. So, now you say you don't have direct
> experience of knowing Krishna, so you can't argue with me anymore.
I NEVER said I had direct experience of knowing Krishna..where did I
say it? Thats the second time you've accused me of this.
I'll state it again: I believe Yogananda's statement that Krishna
actually lived over Daryl's statement that he did not. This is my
OPINION, whereas Daryl and yourself are stating mere opinions as being
facts. Are you really so infantile that you cant see this?
> Yes, all you have is opinion, not facts or evidence to win this debate.
Again, I never claimed I have facts or evidence to prove he existed.
What Im saying is that you dont have facts or evidence to prove he
didnt exist; its merely your opinion!
> Yes, Brahman-Atmananda is in Sat-Chit-Anananda. Thank you for finally
> realizing this boy. About time.
You cannot be "in" Sat-Chit-Ananda; you are That already, though you
may not realize it. What you meant to say was that he is in samadhi,
which is highly dubious and unlikely.
> See? This is double-talk. You raise Brahman-Atmananda up, then you
> seek to tear him down. Why do you do this? Make yourself clear boy.
I never raised him up (where have I raised him..please provide a
quote) and I never tore him down (he did that all by himself). I am
being very clear. It is you who has a penchant for misunderstanding.
> I bet you couldn't get a scholar to repeat that sentence.
On the contrary, I bet I could.
> Evidence makes it fact. It doesn't matter what they think of the
> evidence. Evidence stands as evidence.
Evidence does not make anything fact, it only points to facts, that it
is likely to be fact. Of course it matters what they think of the
evidence. This is how juries make their verdicts in a court. You
really are quite a confused individual.
> Yes, he is a legacy and myth.
A person cannot be a legacy. A "legacy" is what someone leaves behind
for posterity. It implies that they lived and left behind "footprints
in the sands of time."
You should get Daryl to teach you some English or look up words you
dont understand in a dictionary so that you do not make the same
mistake again and make yourself look foolish.
> Nope, we aren't yellow. You can't prove it either. I'm fairly white
> myself.
Daryl is a Filipino is he not? Asian people are typically described
colorfully as being yellow, whereas Caucasians white, American Indians
red and African Americans black, even though this isnt quite the case
literally.
Where "yellow" can apply to you on the other hand is in the figurative
sense of being a coward who cannot think for himself.
> Boy! Yoga is about rising about your attainments and detaching from
> them. If you remained attached to your attainments, you would have very
> little realization.
You are only partially correct. A part of Yoga is indeed about rising
"above" your attachments, and you can certainly be devoid of
attachment to your attainments. However, once you have attained
something, it is concretely a part of your realization, whether you
are attached to it or not. Otherwise, what is the point of practicing?
> Then, why make the threats if you know that the law of karma will do
> what it will. The law of karma never makes threats, it just acts.
I didnt make a threat. You are the one saying I did. Let us instead
call it a prediction. It is precisely because I know that the law of
karma will act that I warned him.
> Where did I say something that made you think I assume you do not
> practice Kriya?
> >>No, you should have practiced them, especially the main Kriya..
Right there..
> Yes, but before you lead the Children of God home, you must weed out the
> fools, the frauds, the hypocrites, the spiritual con artists and the
> evil doers, thus you leave God's children to suffer in their hands. We
> must protect them from these evil doers, lest they fall into their traps.
These fools, frauds, hypocrites, etc; these are the children of God!
All are the children of God, no matter how much they are stumbling in
delusion. If you do not cultivate unconditional love even for His
errant children, you will never reach Him! Always remember this.
> Earlier you said he was in Sat-Chit-Ananda. Do you even know what that
> means?
You are mistaken. I never said he was in Sat-Chit-Ananda. Earlier I
did however say that you cannot be "in" Sat-Chit-Ananda, you are
already That in essence, whether you consciously know it or not. So,
yes I know what it means, you obviously do not!
> If this is your attitude every lifetime, no wonder you haven't reached a
> liberated state yet.
This attitude of mine is actually helpful. One must strive for it in
the right way and enjoy the journey. If you are attached to attaining
some imagined consumation in God by yourself, you will keep Him at bay
until you surrender and let Him take you where He will take you.
> Yeah, some people run away. Some face us, and can't take it. We are
> very much like Sri Yukteswar and great yogis like him. Thank you for
> pointing that out.
If you were even one millionth as great a yogi as Sri Yukteswar, you
would at least comprehend that I was not making a point in your favor.
If you were even a true yogi, not to mention one like Sri Yukteswar,
you would never claim to be a great yogi "like him".
If you were even a genuine seeker, much less a yogi, you would thank
me for pointing this out.
> They are souls making mistakes. This isn't ruthless. If you want to
> see a ruthless being, look to Rand. He uses cuss words every other word
> to degrade someone without a sound arguement. All the stuff he makes
> up, and it comes out of his ass. At least with Brahman-Atmananda and
> myself, you have a chance to learn something if you stay in the debate.
Yes, this Rand is quite an uncouth fellow. He is somewhat of a
frustrated verbal militant. It is quite natural that he is so
vehemently set on belittling Daryl because in some ways he is very
much like him. When there is shit on the ground, often a fly will come
and stay near it.
And yet, despite his vulgar rants, even he clearly perceives that
Daryl is a fraud; he probably knows this better than anyone!
> They don't for you, because you are trying to argue with him.
I am not trying to argue, I am arguing. It is easy to argue with Daryl
and yourself because of the many flaws in your understanding.
> Yes, but you already commend him for his Sri Yukteswar approach. What?
> You can't handle this approach?
As I said earlier, I did not commend him. He does not have a Sri
Yukteswar approach. Sri Yukteswar's approach was wise and silently
loving.
One listens with respect to the roaring of a lion like Sri Yukteswar,
not the nervous barking of a rabid dog like Daryl.
> I'm not his teacher, but I'm a teacher to others already.
Heavens, what a tragic circumstance! I shall pray for them deeply!
> Do you have power and authority to judge the acts of God, and what God does?
No, and neither do you or Daryl! But I do have the power to perceive
that your claim to Swamihood and Daryl's claim to being a guru is
bogus on the face of it.
> Let your ass-wooping commence.
Im still waiting..
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1rvVa.13339$ff.13060@fed1read01>...
Swami Dâ Prem
seeker wrote:
> Da Prem wrote:
>
>
>
>>No, it doesn't. Stating that it falls apart, doesn't mean it falls
>>apart. Prove that it is falling apart on me. Okay?
>
>
>
> Yes, it does. Stating that it doesnt fall apart, doesnt mean it doesnt
> fall apart. Prove that it isnt falling apart on you. Okay?
Actually, I have no evidence showing that it is "falling apart" on me,
so I can't show or prove it to you. Sorry, it looks like you will have
to provide some evidence showing that it is, otherwise I've won already.
That is the very reason I won't bother to reply the remainder of your
message, because I've won, and any more effort on your dumbass would be
a waste of time.
But, if you find that evidence, let me know, I'd like to hear what you
have to say.
Prem
seeker
harder if you wish to become the greatest flamer of ignorance
regarding kriya on the internet. But take heart, your "guru" is a
great example to follow in this regard. Just you keep on keeping on!
If you never give up, you will get there!
Da Prem wrote:
> Actually, I have no evidence showing that it is "falling apart" on me,
> so I can't show or prove it to you. Sorry, it looks like you will have
> to provide some evidence showing that it is, otherwise I've won already.
I have that evidence. It is elaborately explained in my previous two
posts. Your inability and unwillingness to recognize this shows that
you are blind not only spiritually, but intellectualy as well.
> That is the very reason I won't bother to reply the remainder of your
> message, because I've won, and any more effort on your dumbass would be
> a waste of time.
The reason you wont reply to the remainder of my message is because
you have no answer for the things I have said. You are like someone
who, although having come last place in a competition, all the while
is shouting: "Ive won! Ive won!"
It is quite amusing.
Oh and you should have said "dumb ass". It would be correct grammar to
say "dumbass" if you were addressing me directly but you are referring
to my posterior which is called merely an "ass". To say it is "dumb"
is to qualify it with a description, in which case you ought to have
left a space between the two.
> But, if you find that evidence, let me know, I'd like to hear what you
> have to say.
Please re-read my previous replies (several hundred times if you
must). Therein is contained all the evidence you will ever need!
>..because I've won,
All you have won is an even greater lack of respect from decent people
who easily perceive your utter failure to comprehend the most basic
concepts of spirituality. It is said the disciple becomes like the
guru; you are well on your way my son.
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<IYEVa.14371$ff.7207@fed1read01>...
Rajneesh
rand1...@webtv.net
JP and the rest or this trick or treat organization have all the warmth
and understanding of the Klu Klux Klan and the Nazi party rolled in to
one.. The have been spewing their bile on any board that has not locked
them out. They have done an exemplarily job of presenting their
ignorance, nit wit ideas, rude and provocative postings as if they have
a corner on the truth and have demonstrated their lack of even realizing
that they are dismantling their own organization BAY (BUGERS ARE YOURS)
and don't even realize it These brain dead piles of shit are despicable
sub-humans that need to be deprogrammed. I have brought this mindless
group of flakes to the attention of Rick Ross/Cult Specialist. They
will soon have another front to deal with. My attacks on these idiots
has only been in response to their abundance King Kong amounts of
rudeness, ignorance and disrespect. I will continue to verbally knee
caps this spiritually bankrupt group of mutants until they humbly
apologize to the good people on this board for their many verbal
misdeeds and sins against our beloved Yogananda and Babaji. I will next
post the URL of Sister Atmananda's website. Twilight Zone material and
a barrel of laughs!
Sir, you have my respect and I thank you for standing up to these
predators.
Sincerely,
Rand
rand1...@webtv.net
Atmananda charcterizes herself as a humble servant of the people and
even suggest that is below. For a look at the 4 members of this
"International Organization" got to the testimonial letters. Very
rand1...@webtv.net
out the entire site particularly the link where Sister Atmananda
describes with the roar of a an edition of Mad Magazine his upbring and
the terrible tragedies of his life. Here his description of how he
communicates with the dead (perhaps he will learn how do so with the
living someday) and how his swimming student met his demise while the
sister stood by and did nothing like the coward he is. Wait till you
hear how he was visited by a "Being of LIGHT" that transformed his life
into another Lahiri Baba.
Under testimonial letters you will hear from the demented mouths of the
4 members of "International Organization" their adoration for this
circus freak along with how he initiated the Fraudulent Swami Prem by
telephone. Interesting! Initiation by telemarketing. Pretty strange
and funny material. Then compare what they say in contrast to what they
do on this board.
A confused lot of lost souls!
It would be interesting to have some post from members of this group
that have seen the conflicting actions of BAY (BUGERS ARE YOUR) and
share your thoughts on this pathetic site.
Rand
Swami Dâ Prem
> must). Therein is contained all the evidence you will ever need!
Thanks for asking me kindly, but no thanks. I would end up losing brain
cells if I re-read your posts. If I re-read them a "several hundred
times", then I would be as dumb as you.
seeker
I bet it took you the several days since my reply to your post to
conceive and formulate your pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. You must
have been so busy with your many "organisational" demands that you
simply had no time to do this earlier.
Daryl wrote:
> That will be Sat-Guru Brahman-Atmananda for you, anonymous coward.
No, it will always be Daryl. Your parents saw fit to name you as such
and that is what your true name will be to the end of your days. You
sure as hell didnt receive that laughable title from a person of
appropriate spiritual authority, so it means nothing. Take note that
great masters do not go about proclaiming themselves as "Sat-Gurus".
It is their disciples and followers who venerate them as such.
If anything your title should be "sad-guru" in recognition of the fact
that you are a sad and sorry excuse of an impostor who is pretending
to be a guru.
> So what? I say otherwise.
In all honesty, what you say carries very little weight with just
about anybody who might read it, except of course your delusional,
house-trained little pup of a watchdog, Da Prem.
> Because you're an idiot. Due to some moronic prejudice to our
> organization you ofted..
"Ofted" is not a word that occurs in the English language. Go to your
trusty, well-worn, little dictionary and re-evaluate how you are
saying what you are attempting rather poorly to express.
> We..
> maintain that these stories including that of a blue-skinned
> androgynous Krishna is nothing but Hindu mythology with deep inner
> significance and not history as you were erroneously led by your
> uneducated fanaticism to Yogananda's every word.
So what? I say otherwise. And I also maintain that you dont have
knowledge of the truth regarding this matter and that for all your
pretentious horn-blowing, you are nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
Who is this "we"? Of course! You are referring to the multiple
personalities within that damaged brain of yours.
> The facts that I am stating are most logical, valid and would stand
> under any level of scrutiny, while the opinion that Krishna *actually*
> incarnated as a half-man/half-lion god or that he once swallowed an
> entire river etc., if you take away the allegory or symbolism and
> embrace it as historical fact, is nothing but the dysfunctional
> musings of a religious lunatic.
What you are stating is not fact, it is your belief. It does not stand
under any level of scrutiny, least of all that of the people who read
the messages in this newsgroup. What is logical and valid here is the
implicit understanding that you yourself are a musing lunatic, and for
that matter a thoroughly irreligious one.
The point being discussed was not whether Krishna had incarnated
literally as a half-man/half-creature in previous manifestations of
the Godhead (which by the way is referred to in scripture as being in
the aspect of Vishnu, not Krishna, which was the name given to only
one of those manifestations). The point being discussed was whether
Krishna, as mentioned in scripture, was actually a real person and not
the figment of someone's imagination, as is your belief.
You say there is allegory and symbollism in the telling of His moving
a mountain and swallowing a river. This is quite possible, yet still
it does not mean that there was no Krishna.
> No direct experience is required when speaking about the non-existence
> of something. How can anyone experience something (in this case a
> blue-skinned androgynous and sometimes multi-limbed mythological
> character) that is non-existent? And who in the world will require
> "direct experience" of the non-existent as proof of its non-existence?
> This is the kind of stupid reasoning you acquire with prolonged
> association with your "guru" Ned W. Waller.
When speaking about the non-existence of something, what is required
is the conviction that it does not exist based on the irrefutable
evidence that it does not/did not exist. You do not have this
evidence, therefore you cannot concretely claim it didnt exist. How
can anyone deny something exists when it is impossible for them to
prove it doesnt exist? This is the kind of stupid reasoning that has
made you fall into this hole in the first place, you ignoramus.
By the way, Ned Waller is not my Guru. If you truly were a Sat-Guru, a
qualification for whom must necessarily be omniscience (back to your
little dictionary), you would have known that he is not my Guru. It
appears it is your own prolonged association with him (in your mind
only) that has caused you to spitefully throw his name into this
discussion. Leave Ned Waller out of this. Surely you have the common
sense to realize it is inappropriate to throw the name of someone into
the fray, who is totally unrelated to the discussion (much like your
bed-fellow Da Prem did with Rand in a previous posting). Alas, I see
you are not big on common-sense, but let us not prevent this from
further analyzing and debunking your rather unsuccessful attempt at an
argument.
> Why would it be silly? In logic we have analogy, we compare things
> that have similar characteristics. In this case two fictional
> characters.
It would be silly because one is a contemporary fictional character
whose creator could easily be sought to testify to him being a figment
of his imagination, whereas the other is a historical character for
whom no such concrete evidence of his non-existence is forthcoming.
Really, logically speaking, it is because you have no concrete proof
that Krishna did not actually live that you cannot claim him to be a
fictional character.
> No, because the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
> scrolls etc. are not epics or mythology but historical accounts being
> used as guide by anthropologists and archaelogists even up to this
> time.
Just because similar records regarding the life and teachings of
Krishna have not been discovered or studied and documented, does not
mean they do not exist and hence it does not mean that Krishna did not
exist. I am sure you could find scores of scholars, anthropologists
and archaeologists, who would flatly deny that these writings you
mentioned are concrete evidence that Jesus lived and was a real
person.
Your stating that they use these scrolls as guides does not imply this
has anything to do with their belief in Jesus as a liberated master,
and whether he lived and performed miracles and ascended from the
flesh.
> Of course there are some exaggerations as there were other additions,
> deletions, sanitation of his personality, etc.'
The same can apply to Krishna; such as that he was blue, had many arms
and lifted a mountain with his hands or swallowed a river.
> Yes, but fortunately that is not the case with me.
Yes, but unfortunately you cannot perceive that it is the case with
you because you are the very nut-case about whom the statement was
originally made.
> Ah, now you're playing the role of teacher, you stinking piece of
> shit.
Notice how annoyed and aggressive you become when you perceive
something as a threat to your own self-image as the only authority of
knowledge regarding anything. It is not as though you are pointing out
to me that I am contradicting my own admonitions to you, but rather
that you are genuinely miffed at the idea that someone could possibly
usurp your self-image as the master teacher, who alone is worthy of
praise and ego-worship. I really struck a chord there didnt I?
> That's correct. You must apply your own advice to yourself.
That's correct. You must apply your own advice to yourself.
> Humility: Be humble and admit that you know nothing.
You first. How can someone who claims to be a Sat-Guru propagate
spiritual principles without applying them to himself? Masters are
known to be very humble, knowing it is God, and not they who is the
repository of all knowledge and wisdom. You on the other hand are a
self-promoting scam artist.
> Admit that
> believing in a historical Krishna (the blue-skinned androgynous one
> who previously came in various mutated forms) has no value and is
> absolutely crazy.
This has nothing to do with humility as applied to the practice of
kriya which was the original context of the post I made.
> Surrender: Surrender to logical, practicable, no-nonsense and superior
> reasoning. That Hindu mythology has no value when taken literally and
> that they were not created to be objects of fanaticism (to make a
> murthi of a monkey or a blue-skinned androgynous god and waste your
> time worshipping it or chanting Hare Krishna in front of it, to put
> cowdung on the forehead, to venerate the rats [carriers of disease] in
> the temple, to wash idols and drink the wash liquid, etc.) but rather
> decipher the inner meaning of the stories and apply them in your own
> innerdimensional journey and everyday living.
Again, this has nothing to do with the true concept of surrender as it
relates to the practice of kriya which was the original context of my
post.
Surrender not to mere logic and reason, but to the silent whisperings
of soul-intuition within, wherein "all things are brought to
rememberance."
> Perseverance: Persevere in your Kriya efforts (after you learn
> authentic Kriya from a true Guru) and in carrying out your day-to-day
> responsibilities.
Ahh, finally we are in agreement! Where this gets turned on its head
for you is that I have that authentic kriya from a true Guru
(Yogananda and his authorized channels), whereas you are stumbling in
the darkness lacking true spiritual vision and making things bad for
yourself by not even seeking the true spirit of kriya in a righteous
manner. You are nothing but a quack, a sham!
> Yes, you will need that. Not a burned-out American hippie with a
> hidden agenda nor somebody whom you never met, never knew and never
> knew you.
I do not know to whom you are referring as a burned-out hippie, but
going on past experience I am guessing it is another one of the
multiple personalities galavanting around in that screwed up head of
yours. There are medicines you can take for acute schizophrenia; you
should look into it!
This "somebody I have never met, never knew and who never knew me," I
am guessing is your pathetic attempt to make me feel alienated from
the one God has ordained as being my Sat-Guru. If you must know, I
have met him, I have known him and he most certainly knows me.
> Ah, judgemental monkey with a brain like ash. A true master does not
> behave in "contradictory" ways but in complementary ways. He never
> contradict his own words or appear inconsistent. He is not falsely
> humble like your Ned W. Waller ("Oh Lord, you are very great! I take
> the dust off your feet and bow to you 1008 times!" or "Ma! You're
> beautiful! Do you love Mira? Mira sang ..."), nor does he ever need to
> Indianize his manners or behave in a totally fabricated lovey-dovey
> way to attract dysfunctional bliss bunny types like yourself. He calls
> a spade a spade and a moron a moron. He does not fear that his image
> may be damaged or that a powerful "competitor" stands on the way. He
> is complete in himself, confident, pure and stable as a granite
> mountain.
Again you are bringing poor Ned Waller into this. When are you finally
going to realize that your personal vendetta against this man is not
an excuse to bring him up in a totally unrelated discussion? What you
perceive as false humility in another person is actually the lack of
true humility in yourself; it is alien to your nature, therefore you
despise it when a true example of it is brought before you. To my
knowledge Ned Waller never claimed to be a true master, something that
you do all the time mr "sad-guru".
> He does not fear that his image
> may be damaged...
Though possibly not yet fully a true master, I can just imagine Ned
Waller not fearing that his image be damaged by the likes of a naive
little upstart like yourself!
> or that a powerful "competitor" stands on the way.
Masters are beyond "competitors" or the need to define fellow human
beings as obstacles and impediments on the way to realizing God.
Scared, ego-maniacal impostors like yourself on the other hand, have
everything to fear from what they perceive as a threat to their little
sub-plot of ego, as they struggle to come to terms with how little and
insignificant they really are in the vast cosmic scheme of things.
> Stating facts like Krishna is a Hindu mythological character is not
> arrogance, it is being straightforward and informative. When Jesus
> said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
> Father, but by me." (John 14:6) was he being arrogant or was he just
> stating a fact? Was he ruthless when he did the following?
>
> "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
> And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
> the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small
> cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the
> oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
> And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not
> my Father's house an house of merchandise!" (John 2:13-16)
>
> He only did what was appropriate. Your problem is that in your life
> you have never met a true master (only a sanitized version of a person
> who died fifty one years ago and a burned-out hippie ego-stroker). And
> if you ever do you won't be able to recognize him/her due to a load of
> personal bias and preconceived ideas of how a true master "should"
> behave. You are lost. You should learn from the wisdom imbedded in the
> myth of the Gita instead of zeroing in on its non-existent
> historicity. When Arjuna asked Krishna how does a Self-realized person
> walk, speak and behave what was his answer?
The attitude you speak of, which you are trying to justify in yourself
by comparing it to the behaviour of realized masters, is actually a
form of psychological disease based on your inability to come to terms
with the fact that you simply have a nasty little ego in that sheepish
noggin' you have for a head!
Therefore you allow yourself to act like an arrogant prick and feel
good about it, by saying it is how realized beings behave. Because for
you to consider the other possibility, that you have a mountain-load
of personal karma to work out before you can ever possibly hope to
approach even something remotely resembling the true spirit of
Self-realization, is too much of a torment to bear.
It is only natural! You compensate for your lack of genuine
spirituality with an assumed cloak of spiritual authority, hoping it
will fool others into thinking you are someone important and not the
little Filipino boy threading seashells onto a necklace to sell to
visiting tourists!
> I want you
> to realize a simple fact of life, merely stating something does not
> necessarily make it so.
If you could write the above on a mirror and look at it every day, you
might eventually come to realize just how important a statement you
have made!
> The one who is not doing any
> practical good is the person immersed in wishful thinking, encourages
> the proliferation of religious fanaticism, and promotes mythology and
> fantasy as practicable reality.
Try and guess how many of those three criteria you are fulfilling in
this post and I will let you go out and play early.
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03073...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > Daryl,
>
> That will be Sat-Guru Brahman-Atmananda for you, anonymous coward.
>
> >
> > Yogananda said Krishna is real,
>
> So what? I say otherwise.
>
> > that he actually lived and worked many
> > miracles. I would believe him over you any day!
>
> Because you're an idiot. Due to some moronic prejudice to our
> organization you ofted to believe in the material existence of a
> blue-skinned androgynous character who was able to lift an entire hill
> with his bare hands, toss monster donkeys around, swallow an entire
> river, and one who assumed previous incarnations as a fish god,
> tortois god, boar god, half-man/half-lion god, dwarf god etc. We
> maintain that these stories including that of a blue-skinned
> androgynous Krishna is nothing but Hindu mythology with deep inner
> significance and not history as you were erroneously led by your
> uneducated fanaticism to Yogananda's every word.
>
> > Your mere opinion has no validity compared to his testament of the
> > truth about the life of Krishna.
>
> The facts that I am stating are most logical, valid and would stand
> under any level of scrutiny, while the opinion that Krishna *actually*
> incarnated as a half-man/half-lion god or that he once swallowed an
> entire river etc., if you take away the allegory or symbolism and
> embrace it as historical fact, is nothing but the dysfunctional
> musings of a religious lunatic.
>
> > You will continue to remain a "Doctor
> > of Delusion" until you base your statements on convictions acquired
> > through direct experience.
>
> No direct experience is required when speaking about the non-existence
> of something. How can anyone experience something (in this case a
> blue-skinned androgynous and sometimes multi-limbed mythological
> character) that is non-existent? And who in the world will require
> "direct experience" of the non-existent as proof of its non-existence?
> This is the kind of stupid reasoning you acquire with prolonged
> association with your "guru" Ned W. Waller.
>
> >
> > Spiderman is indeed a fiction but its silly to compare Krishna to that
> > kind of thing.
>
> Why would it be silly? In logic we have analogy, we compare things
> that have similar characteristics. In this case two fictional
> characters.
>
> > Do you believe Jesus was made up as well?
>
> No, because the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
> scrolls etc. are not epics or mythology but historical accounts being
> used as guide by anthropologists and archaelogists even up to this
> time.
>
> > Or that the
> > stories of his miracles were contrived or exaggarated?
>
> Of course there are some exaggerations as there were other additions,
> deletions, sanitation of his personality, etc.
>
> >
> > It is a grave mistake to attempt to lead people along the spiritual
> > path when your own attainment is sadly lacking.
>
> Yes, but fortunately that is not the case with me.
>
> > Be careful or you will
> > pay for it dearly.
>
> The only person who will pay dearly is you. You will pay with your own
> worthless (but dear to you) soul the price of your fanaticism,
> ignorance and weak will.
>
> >
> > To know the ins and outs of all the various kriyas intellectualy or
> > perhaps through a little practice does not signify you have that
> > authority to guide or teach others.
>
> Yes, but fortunately that is not the case with me.
>
> > Along with proficiency in
> > performing the technique, you have to develop the true spirit of
>
> Ah, now you're playing the role of teacher, you stinking piece of
> shit.
>
> > kriya; humility, surrender and perseverance.
>
> That's correct. You must apply your own advice to yourself.
>
> Humility: Be humble and admit that you know nothing. Admit that
> believing in a historical Krishna (the blue-skinned androgynous one
> who previously came in various mutated forms) has no value and is
> absolutely crazy.
>
> Surrender: Surrender to logical, practicable, no-nonsense and superior
> reasoning. That Hindu mythology has no value when taken literally and
> that they were not created to be objects of fanaticism (to make a
> murthi of a monkey or a blue-skinned androgynous god and waste your
> time worshipping it or chanting Hare Krishna in front of it, to put
> cowdung on the forehead, to venerate the rats [carriers of disease] in
> the temple, to wash idols and drink the wash liquid, etc.) but rather
> decipher the inner meaning of the stories and apply them in your own
> innerdimensional journey and everyday living.
>
> Perseverance: Persevere in your Kriya efforts (after you learn
> authentic Kriya from a true Guru) and in carrying out your day-to-day
> responsibilities.
>
> > And above all, the
> > shelter of a true guru!
>
> Yes, you will need that. Not a burned-out American hippie with a
> hidden agenda nor somebody whom you never met, never knew and never
> knew you.
>
> >
> > Sometimes a master may behave in seemingly contradictory ways in order
> > to teach some spiritual truth but you are not of that calibre in your
> > present state.
>
> Ah, judgemental monkey with a brain like ash. A true master does not
> behave in "contradictory" ways but in complementary ways. He never
> contradict his own words or appear inconsistent. He is not falsely
> humble like your Ned W. Waller ("Oh Lord, you are very great! I take
> the dust off your feet and bow to you 1008 times!" or "Ma! You're
> beautiful! Do you love Mira? Mira sang ..."), nor does he ever need to
> Indianize his manners or behave in a totally fabricated lovey-dovey
> way to attract dysfunctional bliss bunny types like yourself. He calls
> a spade a spade and a moron a moron. He does not fear that his image
> may be damaged or that a powerful "competitor" stands on the way. He
> is complete in himself, confident, pure and stable as a granite
> mountain.
>
> > Your arrogance and ruthless critiques on these boards
> > are rather the result of some mental inharmony.
>
> Stating facts like Krishna is a Hindu mythological character is not
> arrogance, it is being straightforward and informative. When Jesus
> said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
> Father, but by me." (John 14:6) was he being arrogant or was he just
> stating a fact? Was he ruthless when he did the following?
>
> "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
> And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
> the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small
> cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the
> oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
> And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not
> my Father's house an house of merchandise!" (John 2:13-16)
>
> He only did what was appropriate. Your problem is that in your life
> you have never met a true master (only a sanitized version of a person
> who died fifty one years ago and a burned-out hippie ego-stroker). And
> if you ever do you won't be able to recognize him/her due to a load of
> personal bias and preconceived ideas of how a true master "should"
> behave. You are lost. You should learn from the wisdom imbedded in the
> myth of the Gita instead of zeroing in on its non-existent
> historicity. When Arjuna asked Krishna how does a Self-realized person
> walk, speak and behave what was his answer?
>
> > It is certainly not
> > wisdom.
>
> Nya ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! Look who's talking. I want you
> to realize a simple fact of life, merely stating something does not
> necessarily make it so.
>
> >
> > You like to correct others' misuse of English. You should go and teach
> > that instead of pretending to be a guru.
>
> But the problem is I am not pretending. That is just a silly fantasy
> of your good-for-nothing brain.
>
> > At least then you would be
> > doing some practical good.
>
> I am doing a lot of practical good. The one who is not doing any
> practical good is the person immersed in wishful thinking, encourages
> the proliferation of religious fanaticism, and promotes mythology and
> fantasy as practicable reality.
rand1...@webtv.net
porking a herd of sheep. It is not possible for you to be "DUMBER ASS"
than you already are because (get you calculator out nostril brain)
NOTHING FROM NOTHING = NOTHING slum creature!
THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SPOKEN!!!
Swami Dâ Prem
seeker wrote:
> Ahhh, welcome to the spotlight little man,
>
> I bet it took you the several days since my reply to your post to
> conceive and formulate your pathetic attempt at a rebuttal. You must
> have been so busy with your many "organisational" demands that you
> simply had no time to do this earlier.
Spell the word right, okay? It's organizational, not organisational.
Stupid moron!
> Daryl wrote:
>
>
>
>>That will be Sat-Guru Brahman-Atmananda for you, anonymous coward.
>
>
>
> No, it will always be Daryl.
Maybe only to you, but that is fine. His disciples all throughout the
world address him by his given spiritual name.
> Your parents saw fit to name you as such
> and that is what your true name will be to the end of your days.
Don't bring his parents into this matter. They have nothing to do with
your one-sided opinion about my guru.
> You
> sure as hell didnt receive that laughable title from a person of
> appropriate spiritual authority, so it means nothing.
Actually, he did receive his spiritual name from a holy man of India.
If you had done your research better, you would have known this. When
you say "laughable", you are throwing dirt on Sanatana Dharma and its
spiritual leaders who uphold the Eternal Way of Righteousness. This
shows your lack of respect for the saintly representatives of the
ancient and holy Swami Order.
> Take note that
> great masters do not go about proclaiming themselves as "Sat-Gurus".
Then please tell us how the great master, Brahman-Atmananda should be
proclaimed to all the world by himself and his great following?
> It is their disciples and followers who venerate them as such.
Okay, if that is the case. Brahman-Atmananda is the greatest guru
currently living on the face of the earth. There is no other guru in
our times that holds as much spiritual knowledge in the depth of his
soul. Because of this, and his ability to transfer this Self-Knowledge
to his beloved disciples, he is rightfully called Sat-Guru, "the Truth
that illumines."
> If anything your title should be "sad-guru" in recognition of the fact
> that you are a sad and sorry excuse of an impostor who is pretending
> to be a guru.
Sorry buddy, your Ned "Kashi" Waller is the sad...oh, I don't dare call
him a guru. But, nonetheless, he is still sad, sad, sad!
>
>
>
>>So what? I say otherwise.
>
>
>
> In all honesty, what you say carries very little weight with just
> about anybody who might read it, except of course your delusional,
> house-trained little pup of a watchdog, Da Prem.
Would you like to make this comment to my face? I'll take on you and
your delusional cult leader, Ned "Kashi" Waller any day of the week.
>
>
>
>>Because you're an idiot. Due to some moronic prejudice to our
>>organization you ofted..
>
>
>
> "Ofted" is not a word that occurs in the English language. Go to your
> trusty, well-worn, little dictionary and re-evaluate how you are
> saying what you are attempting rather poorly to express.
>
>
>
>>We..
>>maintain that these stories including that of a blue-skinned
>>androgynous Krishna is nothing but Hindu mythology with deep inner
>>significance and not history as you were erroneously led by your
>>uneducated fanaticism to Yogananda's every word.
>
>
>
> So what? I say otherwise. And I also maintain that you dont have
> knowledge of the truth regarding this matter and that for all your
> pretentious horn-blowing, you are nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
Don't speak about your delusional cult leader like that. He will begin
crying since he is so lovey-dovey. Don't hurt his feelings like that.
You have to break his heart slowly, then depart his cult.
> Who is this "we"?
Him, myself and other members of Our Congregation. That's who. Don't
be so stupid boy!
> Of course! You are referring to the multiple
> personalities within that damaged brain of yours.
If his brain was damaged, he wouldn't be able to function properly.
People with damaged brains are unable to do many functions that the
common folk can do. You should have stuck with the whole "you're
delusional" bit. It's okay, I understand your brain is damaged, so your
brain is unable to function properly and carry on a normal conversation.
>>The facts that I am stating are most logical, valid and would stand
>>under any level of scrutiny, while the opinion that Krishna *actually*
>>incarnated as a half-man/half-lion god or that he once swallowed an
>>entire river etc., if you take away the allegory or symbolism and
>>embrace it as historical fact, is nothing but the dysfunctional
>>musings of a religious lunatic.
>
>
>
> What you are stating is not fact, it is your belief. It does not stand
> under any level of scrutiny,
Okay weirdo. So you believe superhuman exist and they can swallow
rivers whole. You are the biggest dumbass on the planet. Really, you
are! If you believe superhumans can swallow rivers, then you might as
well believe Spiderman and Superman are real people.
> least of all that of the people who read
> the messages in this newsgroup.
Stop making judgements and assuming what other think and believe. When
you do this, you get yourself in trouble. You make yourself look like
an ass.
> What is logical and valid here is the
> implicit understanding that you yourself are a musing lunatic, and for
> that matter a thoroughly irreligious one.
Any logical person could see that you are losing this little debate, and
that you have to resort to name calling and projecting qualities on my
guru that don't exist. The matter was simply that Krishna is mythical,
not real. Now, you've gone from the whole Krishna thing to an outright
attack on my guru's person. Only those who are about to lose a debate
do this. Why? Because, they see they have no standing ground against
what was just said to them. So, they counter with something that isn't
even related to the subject that was just addressed.
>
> The point being discussed was not whether Krishna had incarnated
> literally as a half-man/half-creature in previous manifestations of
> the Godhead (which by the way is referred to in scripture as being in
> the aspect of Vishnu, not Krishna, which was the name given to only
> one of those manifestations). The point being discussed was whether
> Krishna, as mentioned in scripture, was actually a real person and not
> the figment of someone's imagination, as is your belief.
Both Krishna and Arjuna are the figments of Sage Vyasa's imagination.
> You say there is allegory and symbollism in the telling of His moving
> a mountain and swallowing a river. This is quite possible, yet still
> it does not mean that there was no Krishna.
So, you believe in Krishna swallowing rivers. That also means you
believe in Spiderman, Superman, The Hulk and all the Marvel Comics
characters being real. Bravo, idiot boy! Go read your comics and let
your imagination run wild there.
>>No direct experience is required when speaking about the non-existence
>>of something. How can anyone experience something (in this case a
>>blue-skinned androgynous and sometimes multi-limbed mythological
>>character) that is non-existent? And who in the world will require
>>"direct experience" of the non-existent as proof of its non-existence?
>>This is the kind of stupid reasoning you acquire with prolonged
>>association with your "guru" Ned W. Waller.
>
>
>
> When speaking about the non-existence of something, what is required
> is the conviction that it does not exist based on the irrefutable
> evidence that it does not/did not exist.
No, not even conviction is required. Before they invented the
television, there was no television. The people who lived before the
invention of televisions didn't need the conviction that a television
didn't exist. They didn't know it existed! How can you have a
conviction against something that doesn't exist?
If doesn't exist, no conviction is necessary.
> You do not have this
> evidence,
Huh? You just said he needed conviction, not evidence. Now, you are
telling him he doesn't have evidence.
> therefore you cannot concretely claim it didnt exist.
When something never existed, you don't need evidence to prove that it
didn't exist. The non-existence of it, is proof that it never existed.
> How
> can anyone deny something exists when it is impossible for them to
> prove it doesnt exist?
Maybe I should ask you this question: How can you possibly prove that
Krishna existed as a real flesh and blood human being on this planet,
when you have no proof whatsoever to prove your lost case?
> This is the kind of stupid reasoning that has
> made you fall into this hole in the first place, you ignoramus.
No, it's your stupid logic that has fooled you. Thus, you are the fool
of fools. What an honor that is. Okay, so here we are again, calling
people names. Good for you.
Your reasoning lacks correct logic. Let me drive this home with the
following example:
Pre-TV era: Person doesn't know what a TV is, because it would be one
day invented and mass produced in the future, therefore it doesn't exist
and he can't prove it does exist, because there is no shred of evidence
that it ever did or ever will exist.
TV era: Person doesn't know what a TV is, because he lives in a cave.
He comes out of his cave, and a man shows him a box with pictures
flashing on it. Caveman is amazed at TV set, and sits and watches it
for hours, day after day. The evidence is in the object. The man has
already proven it exists by showing the caveman the object (i.e. TV).
> By the way, Ned Waller is not my Guru. If you truly were a Sat-Guru, a
> qualification for whom must necessarily be omniscience (back to your
> little dictionary),
You don't even know the qualitifications of what a Sat-Guru is, so shut
your trap! If you did, you would know my guru or any true guru is a
Sat-Guru.
> you would have known that he is not my Guru.
Yes, Ned "Kashi" Waller is your guru, thanks for letting us know.
> It
> appears it is your own prolonged association with him (in your mind
> only) that has caused you to spitefully throw his name into this
> discussion.
How would you know there is any association--and in your own words,
"prolonged association"--between Ned Waller and Brahman-Atmananda anyway?
> Leave Ned Waller out of this.
Why? Because he is your "guru" and you don't want your "guru" to get
stomped on in public.
> Surely you have the common
> sense to realize it is inappropriate to throw the name of someone into
> the fray,
Hmmm, thats funny, I remember calling you out on this when you spoke
about Brahman-Atmananda's parents. You did that in your very last post.
Remember? Maybe not, let me refresh your memory. Here:
Mahavirya/seeker said: "Your parents saw fit to name you as such and
that is what your true name will be to the end of your days."
> who is totally unrelated to the discussion (much like your
> bed-fellow Da Prem did with Rand in a previous posting).
I try not to respond to the lowly Rand, because his Internet provider
will take care of him for spreading filth around the newsgroups and
Internet, as well as his slander against Our Congregation.
> Alas, I see
> you are not big on common-sense, but let us not prevent this from
> further analyzing and debunking your rather unsuccessful attempt at an
> argument.
You are not good with common-sense boy, because you say
Brahman-Atmananda did something, when it is you who actually did it with
name dropping his parents.
>>Why would it be silly? In logic we have analogy, we compare things
>>that have similar characteristics. In this case two fictional
>>characters.
>
>
>
> It would be silly because one is a contemporary fictional character
> whose creator could easily be sought to testify to him being a figment
> of his imagination, whereas the other is a historical character for
> whom no such concrete evidence of his non-existence is forthcoming.
Remember, we already told you that there is no evidence for non-existent
things. Why? Because they never existed. There lack of existence is
the only proof in the pudding.
> Really, logically speaking, it is because you have no concrete proof
> that Krishna did not actually live that you cannot claim him to be a
> fictional character.
You have no concrete proof that Krishna did exist. You use Yogananada's
words and that's about it. You don't even quote anything Yogananda
said. You just say Yogananda said this and leave it at that. That is
no way to present evidence in my court of law. If you can't play right
in my court, I will throw you out of it!
>>No, because the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi
>>scrolls etc. are not epics or mythology but historical accounts being
>>used as guide by anthropologists and archaelogists even up to this
>>time.
>
>
>
> Just because similar records regarding the life and teachings of
> Krishna have not been discovered or studied and documented, does not
> mean they do not exist and hence it does not mean that Krishna did not
> exist.
No, the similar documents and scripture that fanatics like yourself use
to prove Krishna's exist is the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, etc. You
will not find any more documents that speak of Krishna. But, these have
already been proven to be mythical, because they speak of unbelieveable
feats that not even the greatest spiritual masters of our time have
performed.
> I am sure you could find scores of scholars, anthropologists
> and archaeologists, who would flatly deny that these writings you
> mentioned are concrete evidence that Jesus lived and was a real
> person.
There is evidence of Jesus' Apostles visiting many lands. That is
additional proof of the existence of Jesus the Christ.
Maybe you should watch the DVD special called "The Story of the Twelves
Apostles" and "The Story of Apostle Paul", both presented by The History
Channel. This will give you a better understanding of Jesus' disciples
without reading books with filled with bias. These History Channel DVDs
take a good, hard look at the evidence that Jesus and his disciples existed.
> Your stating that they use these scrolls as guides does not imply this
> has anything to do with their belief in Jesus as a liberated master,
No, it doesn't mean he was anything but a real person. But, if he is a
real person, which has already been proven, then the chances are he was
able to perform his works and miracles, because they are not so
far-fetched like those of the mythical character Krishna.
> and whether he lived and performed miracles and ascended from the
> flesh.
This wasn't the original point you brought up. You were more or less
asking if we believed if Jesus was real. And Jesus is!
>>Of course there are some exaggerations as there were other additions,
>>deletions, sanitation of his personality, etc.'
>
>
>
> The same can apply to Krishna; such as that he was blue, had many arms
> and lifted a mountain with his hands or swallowed a river.
No, no, no! But you already stated you believe in Krishna swallowing
rivers and lifting mountains with his hands. Don't back out of it now!
Stand to your original thoughts and points. Only the weak-willed get
mangled in a debate like you.
>>Yes, but fortunately that is not the case with me.
>
>
>
> Yes, but unfortunately you cannot perceive that it is the case with
> you because you are the very nut-case about whom the statement was
> originally made.
Well, I perceive him not as a "nut-case", and the statement wasn't made
about me, but about him. What do you say about that little boy?
>>Ah, now you're playing the role of teacher, you stinking piece of
>>shit.
>
>
>
> Notice how annoyed and aggressive you become when you perceive
> something as a threat to your own self-image as the only authority of
> knowledge regarding anything.
Annoyed? Aggressive? He just called you a "stinking piece of shit",
that's all. Don't go on the defense because someone called you a name
you don't like.
> It is not as though you are pointing out
> to me that I am contradicting my own admonitions to you, but rather
> that you are genuinely miffed at the idea that someone could possibly
> usurp your self-image as the master teacher, who alone is worthy of
> praise and ego-worship. I really struck a chord there didnt I?
Oh, this must be the reason you lash out by calling my guru a
"nut-case", "lunatic", "crazy", and similar insults. Good for you,
thanks for pointing out the reason for us. We appreciate that!
>>That's correct. You must apply your own advice to yourself.
>
>
>
> That's correct. You must apply your own advice to yourself.
Is there a copycat in the room?
NOTICE TO READERS:
The top statement was Brother Brahman-Atmananda's. The bottom
statement, though it appears to be the same, was the copy and paste
statement of Mahavirya/seeker.
>
>>Humility: Be humble and admit that you know nothing.
>
>
>
> You first.
Oh my goodness. How humble is that? "You go first!"
> How can someone who claims to be a Sat-Guru propagate
> spiritual principles without applying them to himself?
He has.
> Masters are
> known to be very humble, knowing it is God, and not they who is the
> repository of all knowledge and wisdom.
You haven't met a Master Teacher, so shut up with your brainwash
garbage. It's stinking up the room, and you are beginning to bore me,
because you never shut up. You always have something to say about
everything. For everyone's benefit, please put a sock in your mouth!
> You on the other hand are a
> self-promoting scam artist.
How does he apparently scam? I'd like to hear that.
No, nevermind. I'd rather not, you'll go on and on and on, and never
shut up. Once you get started you never close that mouth of yours.
Goodness child, don't you ever have time to meditate and enjoy the
silence, or is that mouth running 24/7?
>>Admit that
>>believing in a historical Krishna (the blue-skinned androgynous one
>>who previously came in various mutated forms) has no value and is
>>absolutely crazy.
>
>
>
> This has nothing to do with humility as applied to the practice of
> kriya which was the original context of the post I made.
No, humility is humility no matter what the situation. You don't just
have humility when talking about Kriya, and not have humility when
talking about mythical characters like Krishna and Spiderman. When you
are humble, you are the essence of humility.
But, you wouldn't know this, because you told Brahman-Atmananda to go
first with being humble, which implies and shows that you aren't humble,
because you need someone to perform the act of humbleness before you are
able to know what it is. This is the very reason that you need a real
teacher, not just another cult leader like Ned "Kashi" Waller.
>
>
>>Surrender: Surrender to logical, practicable, no-nonsense and superior
>>reasoning. That Hindu mythology has no value when taken literally and
>>that they were not created to be objects of fanaticism (to make a
>>murthi of a monkey or a blue-skinned androgynous god and waste your
>>time worshipping it or chanting Hare Krishna in front of it, to put
>>cowdung on the forehead, to venerate the rats [carriers of disease] in
>>the temple, to wash idols and drink the wash liquid, etc.) but rather
>>decipher the inner meaning of the stories and apply them in your own
>>innerdimensional journey and everyday living.
>
>
>
> Again, this has nothing to do with the true concept of surrender as it
> relates to the practice of kriya which was the original context of my
> post.
Goodness, you are boring me. I have one last thing to say, before I cut
this message short. Humility, surrender and perseverance once
cultivated are carried with you everywhere, no matter what you are doing
or what situation you are placed in.
Bye bye little man!
rand1...@webtv.net
A is for the little boys ASSES he fucks
R is for the dogs he RAPES
Y is for his YODELING on Prem's prick
L is because he LOVES sperm shakes
Together they spell......DARYL!!!!!!!!
rand1...@webtv.net
Click on Charitable Work at the top. Scroll down and read in amazement
Dr. Daryl's Freudian slip. As he describes a purported structure that he
claims he is building for the poor children of the Philipines he refers
to various rooms and calls the dining area "the cum kitchen". I KID YOU
NOT! That is word for word what is on his site. Don't take my word for
it. Go there before the great Sat-Guru discovers again that his own
trench mouth will be his undoing and changes the text and claims it was
an error. You have to read this with your won eyes to believe it.
Again, get there before he changes it. It will be amusing to see what
his explanation and excuses are for this blatant (excuse the pun) slip
of the lounge! Hey Swami Prem whats your excuse......why would you and
your great guru's organization need a "cum kitchen" for?
Lets hear it Sweety Pie!
Your Buddy,
RAND
rand1...@webtv.net
WWW.ONEGREATPOWER.ORG.
YOU WON'T BELEIVE YOUR EYES!
seeker
> Spell the word right, okay? It's organizational, not organisational.
Bravo! You are finally learning to refine your use of English. I am
glad that Ive started you on the path by adding a few mis-spelled
words and incorrect syntax. See if you can find the others as well..
> His disciples all throughout the
> world address him by his given spiritual name.
His disciples throughout the world may address him by it but he is and
always will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna. It doesnt matter how much
you try and embellish his character by helping him pose as a holy man.
> Actually, he did receive his spiritual name from a holy man of India.
> If you had done your research better, you would have known this. When
> you say "laughable", you are throwing dirt on Sanatana Dharma and its
> spiritual leaders who uphold the Eternal Way of Righteousness. This
> shows your lack of respect for the saintly representatives of the
> ancient and holy Swami Order.
Who was this man and what was his name? Is he still alive and if so,
where can he be contacted? This is an opportunity to support your
claim with real evidence.
I am not throwing dirt on Sanatana Dharma and its spiritual leaders
because Daryl is not a true representative of Eternal Righteousness
and he is not a true spiritual leader.
> Then please tell us how the great master, Brahman-Atmananda should be
> proclaimed to all the world by himself and his great following?
He is no spiritual master, but Daryl Pahimna should be proclaimed as
the great master of fraud and misrepresentation that he is. Luckily,
you are helping him to do this admirably through your failed, bungling
attempts at glorifying him.
> Okay, if that is the case. Brahman-Atmananda is the greatest guru
> currently living on the face of the earth. There is no other guru in
> our times that holds as much spiritual knowledge in the depth of his
> soul. Because of this, and his ability to transfer this Self-Knowledge
> to his beloved disciples, he is rightfully called Sat-Guru, "the Truth
> that illumines."
Now take a lesson from your own "guru". In his post he stated that a
great lesson to be learned in life is that stating something as fact
does not necessarily make it so. Your statement above is a perfect
example of this.
> Would you like to make this comment to my face? I'll take on you and
> your delusional cult leader, Ned "Kashi" Waller any day of the week.
Yes I would. Unfortunately I dont know where you live. Would you be so
kind as to provide the details?
Its a common fault of violently inclined people like yourself to
exhibit bravado when you do not even know what you are getting
yourself into. You do not know who I am or what I look like. I find it
amusing that you are so eager to fight regardless of that. Any sane
individual considers the situation very carefully before he acts and
does not rush in blindly.
Most bullies get set straight in high school, you obviously have held
on to your tendency to this day. If you are so interested in venting
your anger physically, like a lot of weak and ego-oriented individuals
in this world, go pick a fight with the first like-minded individual
you see and land yourself a hospital bed, if not a fresh start in a
new incarnation (God knows you need it). That will teach you not to
threaten physical violence (maybe).
> Don't speak about your delusional cult leader like that. He will begin
> crying since he is so lovey-dovey. Don't hurt his feelings like that.
> You have to break his heart slowly, then depart his cult.
Read again! The person of whom I was speaking, Daryl Pahimna, is not
my delusional cult leader: he is yours! Again you have failed in basic
comprehension of English. Follow your own advice given above if you
value truth and freedom from delusion.
> Him, myself and other members of Our Congregation. That's who. Don't
> be so stupid boy!
You are the stupid one for taking such an obvious joke at his expense
as an indication that I didnt know what he was saying!
> If his brain was damaged, he wouldn't be able to function properly.
> People with damaged brains are unable to do many functions that the
> common folk can do. You should have stuck with the whole "you're
> delusional" bit.
But he isnt able to function properly! His claim to being logical when
he is being so blatantly illogical, saying he knows something as fact
when he cannot possibly know it as such, is completely absurd and
illogical!
The reason you know what people with damaged brains cannot do is
because your own brain is damaged, probably because of the many fights
you have picked with the wrong people!
> Okay weirdo. So you believe superhuman exist and they can swallow
> rivers whole. You are the biggest dumbass on the planet. Really, you
> are! If you believe superhumans can swallow rivers, then you might as
> well believe Spiderman and Superman are real people.
How many times must I tell you to read my post again? Your degree of
non-comprehension of written English is astounding.
I clearly stated that although Krishna's swallowing a river may
possibly be exaggarated, it does not necessarily mean there was no
embodied liberated master Krishna who lived.
> Stop making judgements and assuming what other think and believe. When
> you do this, you get yourself in trouble. You make yourself look like
> an ass.
Making "yourself look like an ass" is precisely what you have done in
all your posts. Assuming what others think and believe is what Daryl
did when he stated that scholars "know" Krishna was myth. In actual
fact, there are a great number who believe otherwise and if you will
seek them out they will tell you so themselves.
> Any logical person could see that you are losing this little debate, and
> that you have to resort to name calling and projecting qualities on my
> guru that don't exist. The matter was simply that Krishna is mythical,
> not real. Now, you've gone from the whole Krishna thing to an outright
> attack on my guru's person. Only those who are about to lose a debate
> do this. Why? Because, they see they have no standing ground against
> what was just said to them. So, they counter with something that isn't
> even related to the subject that was just addressed.
Any logical person could see that you have already lost when you ran
away the first time. You accuse me of the very things which you are
doing left, right and center.
> So, they counter with something that isn't
> even related to the subject that was just addressed.
Yes, such as bringing other people into this debate who have nothing
to do with the suject at hand, threatening physical violence when they
know this will not solve anything or cure them of their ignorance,
comparing historical figures to make-believe characters, etc, etc.
Your every post betrays that you do not follow your own advice.
> Both Krishna and Arjuna are the figments of Sage Vyasa's imagination.
What is a figment of Daryl's and your imagination is the idea that you
can state something as fact when you have no possible way of knowing
whether it is true. What is a figment of your imagination is the
belief that you are actually proving your point with your baseless and
empty opinions.
> > You say there is allegory and symbollism in the telling of His moving
> > a mountain and swallowing a river. This is quite possible, yet still
> > it does not mean that there was no Krishna.
> So, you believe in Krishna swallowing rivers. That also means you
> believe in Spiderman, Superman, The Hulk and all the Marvel Comics
> characters being real. Bravo, idiot boy! Go read your comics and let
> your imagination run wild there.
LOL..remember when I told you that you need to read and re-read things
again before replying and that your comprehension of what has been
written is very poor? The above again just proves my point!
What I was saying is that even if it is true that the story of Krishna
swallowing a river was symbolic of something rather than a fact, it
does not mean that Krishna did not/does not exist. You took it to mean
that I believe he swallowed a river while in fact I was saying that
his not necessarily actually swallowing a river is not a barrier to
the fact that he might have actually lived; that there was really a
Krishna about whom stories of miraculous happenings were possibly
exaggarated. Then again I wasnt there, perhaps he did swallow a river
and lift a mountain.
BOOYAH! Pick your ass up off the floor and get back into the penalty
box!
> No, not even conviction is required. Before they invented the
> television, there was no television. The people who lived before the
> invention of televisions didn't need the conviction that a television
> didn't exist. They didn't know it existed! How can you have a
> conviction against something that doesn't exist?
This example is not relevant to the discussion because to be unaware
of something that has not yet existed is very different compared to
disbelieving something which has been claimed to exist.
Here is the situation: Daryl and yourself claim Krishna never existed
based upon what you think scholars believe about the matter and what
your own limited understanding of what it is possible to attain
through spiritual evolution.
Firstly: Not all scholars are of this opinion about Krishna as Daryl
claims. There are in fact many who are of the opposite opinion.
Second: Scholars once believed that the world was flat. Scholars also
believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Scholars (some
of them) also believe Krishna didnt really exist; they may easily be
wrong about this as well.
Thirdly: You have stated your belief that Jesus Christ really lived
and that he was a liberated master. Was it not he who said: "If ye
have faith, even as of a mustard seed, these things ye shall do also,
and greater than these shall ye do." ? If you believe in the validity
of his statement, you must then also concede that it is possible for a
fully liberated being such as Krishna to move mountains and swallow
rivers, etc.
Finally: Before you reply hastily, without thoroughly understanding
what I have written, I recommend you take remedial classes in English
and especially in comprehension.
> Huh? You just said he needed conviction, not evidence. Now, you are
> telling him he doesn't have evidence.
I said he needed conviction based on actual experience to know whether
Krihsna exists. This is the only real kind of evidence. Scholars'
opinions and historical records can never give you 100% proof.
> When something never existed, you don't need evidence to prove that it
> didn't exist. The non-existence of it, is proof that it never existed.
True, but it is only your claim that he didnt exist, your opinion, not
actual fact that you can prove concretely with irrefutable evidence.
> Maybe I should ask you this question: How can you possibly prove that
> Krishna existed as a real flesh and blood human being on this planet,
> when you have no proof whatsoever to prove your lost case?
Maybe you shouldnt have asked that question, its just another
opportunity to show how ignorant you are. The case here is not for me
to prove he didnt exist, since I dont claim that I know for sure, just
that I believe it. The case is for you to prove he didnt exist since
you are stating it as fact that you cannot possibly know for sure.
Please make greater effort to remember what the original argument was.
> No, it's your stupid logic that has fooled you. Thus, you are the fool
> of fools. What an honor that is. Okay, so here we are again, calling
> people names. Good for you.
You and Pahimna call people more names than anyone else on this
newsgroup with the exception of Rand (who is a new kid on the block).
How funny that you call me out for this when you and Pahimna are the
major culprits of it.
> Your reasoning lacks correct logic. Let me drive this home with the
> following example:
>
> Pre-TV era: Person doesn't know what a TV is, because it would be one
> day invented and mass produced in the future, therefore it doesn't exist
> and he can't prove it does exist, because there is no shred of evidence
> that it ever did or ever will exist.
>
> TV era: Person doesn't know what a TV is, because he lives in a cave.
> He comes out of his cave, and a man shows him a box with pictures
> flashing on it. Caveman is amazed at TV set, and sits and watches it
> for hours, day after day. The evidence is in the object. The man has
> already proven it exists by showing the caveman the object (i.e. TV).
You make a habit of using bad examples to try and prove your point.
You have not driven it home here, but into the ground. You yourself
say the evidence is in the object. You have made the statement that
Krishna doesnt exist. In order to know this as fact you would have to
go back to the Krishna era and investigate it. Because you cannot do
this, you have no right to claim as fact that he didnt exist. How much
more clear can it possibly be?
> You don't even know the qualitifications of what a Sat-Guru is, so shut
> your trap! If you did, you would know my guru or any true guru is a
> Sat-Guru.
Judging by your faith in Pahimna, it is you who doesnt know what the
qualifications of a Sat-Guru are, or you would never take him on as
your "guru".
> > you would have known that he is not my Guru.
>
> Yes, Ned "Kashi" Waller is your guru, thanks for letting us know.
I have already told you it is not the case. The reason you say this is
because your approach to arguments you cannot handle is to
misrepresent something I have said. But you cant do this here because
Ive told you he isnt, therefore he isnt. No amount of your lies will
ever make people think that he is.
> How would you know there is any association--and in your own words,
> "prolonged association"--between Ned Waller and Brahman-Atmananda anyway?
The "association" between them I spoke of is not a mutual one. I said
it was in Pahimna's mind only because he is holding a grudge against
Ned Waller. I have eyes and I can read. Ive seen Pahimna bad-mouth him
for a long time.
> Why? Because he is your "guru" and you don't want your "guru" to get
> stomped on in public.
Stop. Havent I already told you he isnt my Guru? You misrepresent the
truth so much because twisting things I say is the only way you can
answer.
> > Surely you have the common
> > sense to realize it is inappropriate to throw the name of someone into
> > the fray,
>
> Hmmm, thats funny, I remember calling you out on this when you spoke
> about Brahman-Atmananda's parents. You did that in your very last post.
> Remember? Maybe not, let me refresh your memory. Here:
>
> Mahavirya/seeker said: "Your parents saw fit to name you as such and
> that is what your true name will be to the end of your days."
I didnt name drop his parents since "name-dropping" implies revealing
their actual names. I refered to them as his "parents", not by their
actual names.
> I try not to respond to the lowly Rand, because his Internet provider
> will take care of him for spreading filth around the newsgroups and
> Internet, as well as his slander against Our Congregation.
If reporting filth-spreaders to internet service providers took care
of them sufficiently enough so that they wouldnt return, you and
Pahimna would be long gone. But you arent so theres fat chance of
that. Im betting Rand will be around for a good deal longer.
> You are not good with common-sense boy, because you say
> Brahman-Atmananda did something, when it is you who actually did it with
> name dropping his parents.
As already explained, I didnt name drop his parents, I refered to them
once without revealing their names. It is you who are bad with
common-sense as well as with the meaning of words.
> Remember, we already told you that there is no evidence for non-existent
> things. Why? Because they never existed. There lack of existence is
> the only proof in the pudding.
Remember, I already told you that your claim he didnt exist is an
opinion. Therefore, saying he didnt exist doesnt mean he didnt.
Remember, I didnt claim he existed, merely that I believe that he did;
it is my opinion.
"There" is something different than what you inteded to say. The
correct word would have been "Their".
> You have no concrete proof that Krishna did exist. You use Yogananada's
> words and that's about it. You don't even quote anything Yogananda
> said. You just say Yogananda said this and leave it at that. That is
> no way to present evidence in my court of law. If you can't play right
> in my court, I will throw you out of it!
This isnt your court. You are only the defense lawyer, Pahimna is the
defendant and I am the prosecuting attorney. The proof that this isnt
your court is that you cannot throw me out of it. Go on, just try!
Let me state it again for the record, I am not claiming he existed,
just that I believe he did. You on the other hand are claiming he
didnt, and it is also my claim that your claim to it being fact is
merely opinion; a belief, not fact.
Youre right. I should have posted Yogananda's words on the matter in
my initial post; at least then your denial of his authority about it
would have already looked much more childish:
"The age and authorship of the Gita, as with so many of India's
ancient writings and scriptures, remains an engaging subject of
intellectual and scholarly research and dispute. Its verses are found
in the sixth of eighteen books that constitute India's great epic
poem, the Mahabharata, in the Bhishma Parva, sections 23-40. In
100,000 couplets this hoary epic - perhaps the longest poem in world
literature - recounts the HISTORY of the descendants of King Bharata,
the Panadavas and Kauravas, cousins whose dispute over a kingdom was
the cause of the cataclysmic war of Kurukshetra. The Bhagavad Gita, a
sacred dialogue on yoga between Bhagavan Krishna - WHO WAS AT ONCE A
KING AND A DIVINE INCARNATION - and his chief disciple, the Pandava
prince Arjuna, purportedly takes place on the eve of this fearsome
war."
"The ancient sacred writings do not clearly distinguish history from
symbology; rather, they often intermix the two in the tradition of
scriptural revelation. Prophets would pick up instances of the
everyday life and events of their times and from them draw similes to
express subte spiritual truths...Thus, in a language of simile,
metaphor and allegory, the Bhagavad Gita was very cleverly written by
Sage Vyasa by interweaving HISTORICAL FACTS with psychological and
spiritual truths, presenting a word-painting of the tumultuous inner
battles that must be waged by both the material and the spiritual man.
In the hard shell of symbology, he hid the deepest spiritual meanings
to protect them from the devastation of the ignorance of the Dark Ages
toward which civilization was descending concurrent WITH THE END OF
SRI KRISHNA'S INCARNATION ON EARTH.
In interpreting scripture, one must not, therefore, ignore the FACTUAL
and HISTORICAL elements in which the truth was couched. One must
distinguish between an ordinary illustration of a moral doctrine or
recounting of a spiritual phenomenon and that of a deeper esoteric
intent...The true way to understand scripture is through intuition,
attuning oneself to the inner realization of truth."
"That the instruction and revelations of the Bhagavad Gita are
ascribed to Bhagavan Krishna, though probably not delivered by him as
one discourse in the midst of a battlefield, is quite in keeping with
THE INCARNATE EARTH-MISSION OF KRISHNA as Yogeshvar, "Lord of Yoga."
"The key figure of the Bhagavad Gita is, of course, Bhagavan Krishna.
The HISTORICAL KRISHNA is enshrouded in the mystery of scriptural
metaphor and mythology."
(Notice he said the "historical" Krishna, meaning there really was a
Krishna, although metaphor and mythology may be ascribed to some of
the things written about him).
When Sri Krishna INCARNATED ON EARTH, Arjuna, a great sage in his
previous life, took birth also to be his companion.."
- Paramahansa Yogananda in God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita -
Royal Science of God Realization.
"The Old Father (Babaji), He is Krishna."
- Sri Sri Shyama Charan Lahiri Mahashaya
You can deny what he said about Krishna all you like. It does not make
one iota of difference to the fact that you fucked up in your claim
that he didnt exist as a historical figure as testified to by
Yogananda, whose word is to be believed over yours and Pahimna's as
surely as day follows night.
> No, the similar documents and scripture that fanatics like yourself use
> to prove Krishna's exist is the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, etc. You
> will not find any more documents that speak of Krishna. But, these have
> already been proven to be mythical, because they speak of unbelieveable
> feats that not even the greatest spiritual masters of our time have
> performed.
There are several reasons for this. One is that an avatar like Krishna
cannot be compared in realization and capacity to perform miracles
like a Siddha or Jivanmukta only.
Another reason is that miracles on such a grand scale are generally
more difficult to perform in a lower age like Kali or early Dwapara
Yuga. Krishna's incarnation surely occured at the end of the previous
Dwapara Yuga, when the earth was sinking into the twilight of the
descending Kali Yuga.
"We hear of saintly ascetics, or prophets in the woods or secluded
haunts, who were men of renunciation only; BUT SRI KRISHNA WAS ONE OF
THE GREATEST EXEMPLARS OF DIVINITY, because he lived and manifested
himself as a Christ and at the same time performed the duties of a
noble king."
- Paramahansa Yogananda in God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita -
Royal Science of God Realization.
"Since there is a 200-year transition period between the end of
Dwapara proper and the beginning of Kali, the departure of
Yuddhisthira and the other Pandavas, described in the Mahabharata as
occuring at the end of Dwapara Yuga and thirty-six years after the
Kurukshetra war, may have been around 900 B.C. according to Sri
Yukteswar's calculations - or earlier if one takes the Mahabharata's
account to mean merely that the Pandavas departed sometime near the
end of Dwapara Yuga, not literally in the very last year if that age."
(*editor's note) - in God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita - Royal
Science of God Realization by Paramahansa Yogananda.
I never said I didnt believe Jesus never lived. I said that, based on
your belief about the non-existence of Krishna because of the mere
opinion of some scholars, it could just as easily be stated that Jesus
never existed. I didnt say I dont believe in him, so why try and
convince me that he did? I believe it.
> >>Yes, but fortunately that is not the case with me.
(Pahimna)
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, but unfortunately you cannot perceive that it is the case with
> > you because you are the very nut-case about whom the statement was
> > originally made.
(myself)
> Well, I perceive him not as a "nut-case", and the statement wasn't made
> about me, but about him.
(Da Prem)
Yes, and the reply I made to his post in which I made that statement
was also
to him, not you! You should wait until you are sober before attempting
to reply to a post!
> Annoyed? Aggressive? He just called you a "stinking piece of shit",
> that's all. Don't go on the defense because someone called you a name
> you don't like.
I wasnt being defensive. I was pointing out reasons he made such a
remark, which are plainly evident.
> > It is not as though you are pointing out
> > to me that I am contradicting my own admonitions to you, but rather
> > that you are genuinely miffed at the idea that someone could possibly
> > usurp your self-image as the master teacher, who alone is worthy of
> > praise and ego-worship. I really struck a chord there didnt I?
>
> Oh, this must be the reason you lash out by calling my guru a
> "nut-case", "lunatic", "crazy", and similar insults. Good for you,
> thanks for pointing out the reason for us. We appreciate that!
Your arguing has degenerated to the point of absurdity. The only thing
I pointed out was the inner psychology of your "guru" and what caused
him to type such a response and generally what drives him to behave in
the way that he does. Appreciate that!
> >>Humility: Be humble and admit that you know nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> > You first.
>
> Oh my goodness. How humble is that? "You go first!"
Well done, but I never claimed to be humble.
> You haven't met a Master Teacher, so shut up with your brainwash
> garbage. It's stinking up the room, and you are beginning to bore me,
> because you never shut up. You always have something to say about
> everything. For everyone's benefit, please put a sock in your mouth!
Make me. At last you are getting a taste of your own and your "guru's"
(a true flamer's) medicine. You talk of stinking up the whole room;
now you know how everyone else feels whenever your "guru" and you
venture to add your worthless words and meaningless rants to a message
thread.
> How does he apparently scam? I'd like to hear that.
He scams because he is pretending to be something he is not. He
defrauds people into thinking he is a genuine spiritual leader when in
actual fact he is the clown-prince of lies and deception. Surely you
knew the answer to that before you asked the question.
> No, nevermind. I'd rather not, you'll go on and on and on, and never
> shut up. Once you get started you never close that mouth of yours.
> Goodness child, don't you ever have time to meditate and enjoy the
> silence, or is that mouth running 24/7?
Knowing my spritual practices and how much time I devote to them will
not help ou in any way. And I am not using my mouth but my fingers,
because this is a computer and you type things into it on a keyboard.
You should take your own advice and quit posting anything relating to
kriya or yoga on the internet (and so should your charlatan of a
"guru"). As a matter of fact, you should both quit ever posting
anything about anything on the net; it is sure to be a load of crap!
> No, humility is humility no matter what the situation. You don't just
> have humility when talking about Kriya, and not have humility when
> talking about mythical characters like Krishna and Spiderman. When you
> are humble, you are the essence of humility.
> But, you wouldn't know this, because you told Brahman-Atmananda to go
> first with being humble, which implies and shows that you aren't humble,
> because you need someone to perform the act of humbleness before you are
> able to know what it is. This is the very reason that you need a real
> teacher, not just another cult leader like Ned "Kashi" Waller.
Your advice on humility is duly noted. I didnt express humility when
talking about kriya or Krishna; I never claimed that I did. Yet I know
what true humility is because I have seen it displayed by truly divine
souls. You and Pahimna do not fit this category. That much is certain.
> Goodness, you are boring me. I have one last thing to say, before I cut
> this message short. Humility, surrender and perseverance once
> cultivated are carried with you everywhere, no matter what you are doing
> or what situation you are placed in.
Nice teaching but you must live by what you say, otherwise no one will
listen!
It is clear thatyou do not.
> Bye bye little man!
> Is there a copycat in the room?
Yes, it is you!
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ukiWa.18870$ff.13397@fed1read01>...
Swami Dâ Prem
>>Spell the word right, okay? It's organizational, not organisational.
>
>
>
> Bravo! You are finally learning to refine your use of English. I am
> glad that Ive started you on the path by adding a few mis-spelled
> words and incorrect syntax. See if you can find the others as well..
Nya ha ha ha har! An old dog is trying to teach me new tricks in debate,
eh?
seeker: "Well, I made those mistakes in the debate on purpose."
Prem: "Oh, really?"
seeker: "Yeah, really. I want to make you a better person by finding my
mistakes. I'm such a dumbass I thought I would help you and put my
stupidity to good use."
>>His disciples all throughout the
>>world address him by his given spiritual name.
>
>
>
> His disciples throughout the world may address him by it but he is and
> always will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna. It doesnt matter how much
> you try and embellish his character by helping him pose as a holy man.
Stop contradicting yourself here, boy! You said his disciples address
him by his given spiritual name, but you say this, "he is and always
will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna". If he was just plain old Daryl
all the time, then his disciples would call him Daryl, but we don't. We
have more respect for our guru than that. By at least one person
addressing him by his given spiritual name, Brahman-Atmananda or
Sat-Guru that makes your above statement false.
>>Actually, he did receive his spiritual name from a holy man of India.
>>If you had done your research better, you would have known this. When
>>you say "laughable", you are throwing dirt on Sanatana Dharma and its
>>spiritual leaders who uphold the Eternal Way of Righteousness. This
>>shows your lack of respect for the saintly representatives of the
>>ancient and holy Swami Order.
>
>
>
> Who was this man and what was his name? Is he still alive and if so,
> where can he be contacted?
Why are you so anxious to jump on this bandwagon? Are you going to
right this holy man and complain about our guru? Nya ha ha ha! Do you
really think I would put bullets in the gun and hand it the gun to you?
> This is an opportunity to support your claim with real evidence.
Boy! You see, I don't really have to provide evidence in this court,
since it is my court. Remember? I told you earlier that it was you,
who had to show me evidence concerning Krishna and all your moronic ideas.
Let me rephrase it for you, in words you can comprehend:
THIS IS MY COURT.
> I am not throwing dirt on Sanatana Dharma and its spiritual leaders
> because Daryl is not a true representative of Eternal Righteousness
> and he is not a true spiritual leader.
Of course, you have no proof of this, and since this is my court, you
must provide proof of all your statements from now on. Anything that
you say without providing solid evidence, will automatically be
dismissed from this High Court. Do you understand?
>>Then please tell us how the great master, Brahman-Atmananda should be
>>proclaimed to all the world by himself and his great following?
>
>
>
> He is no spiritual master,
Where is the proof? Oh, no proof. Too bad, this one is thrown out of
the court. Better luck next time.
> but Daryl Pahimna should be proclaimed as
> the great master of fraud and misrepresentation that he is.
This is opinion only, your opinion, and there is no evidence to
accompany it. This one is also thrown out of the court.
>Luckily,
> you are helping him to do this admirably through your failed, bungling
> attempts at glorifying him.
No, I'm just sticking up for my guru because this little dog keeps
barking at his leg.
>>Okay, if that is the case. Brahman-Atmananda is the greatest guru
>>currently living on the face of the earth. There is no other guru in
>>our times that holds as much spiritual knowledge in the depth of his
>>soul. Because of this, and his ability to transfer this Self-Knowledge
>>to his beloved disciples, he is rightfully called Sat-Guru, "the Truth
>>that illumines."
>
>
>
> Now take a lesson from your own "guru". In his post he stated that a
> great lesson to be learned in life is that stating something as fact
> does not necessarily make it so. Your statement above is a perfect
> example of this.
The testimonials of all our students will back up my statement. There
is my evidence.
Remember? You can't over rule the judge in his own court.
>>Would you like to make this comment to my face? I'll take on you and
>>your delusional cult leader, Ned "Kashi" Waller any day of the week.
>
>
>
> Yes I would. Unfortunately I dont know where you live. Would you be so
> kind as to provide the details?
Ha ha ha! Come to Arizona, email me when you get here, and we will pick
a public place to hold a debate. I will even get my journalist friends
to cover the debate. It'll be a hoot as I rub your face in your own dog
poo!
> Its a common fault of violently inclined people like yourself to
> exhibit bravado when you do not even know what you are getting
> yourself into.
There is nothing violent about a public debate where hundreds to
thousands of people can watch a spiritual personality take on a low dog
like yourself. They will consider it entertainment as I make you eat
your words.
> You do not know who I am
Yes, I do. You are a follower of the God Ned Waller.
> or what I look like.
It doesn't matter. When you get here, we have public debate, okay?
Well, that's if your God Ned Waller gives you permission to do so.
> I find it
> amusing that you are so eager to fight regardless of that.
No, not eager. It's because you wont come to Arizona to publicly debate
a spiritual personality like myself.
> Any sane
> individual considers the situation very carefully before he acts and
> does not rush in blindly.
Oh, I've given it thought. I thought of all my friends and students
that I'll tell, so they can show up and watch me debate you in public.
> Most bullies get set straight in high school, you obviously have held
> on to your tendency to this day.
I was never a bulley in school. You assume that I might be some sort of
bulley, because I'm so good with words in a debate like this one.
> If you are so interested in venting
> your anger physically,
No anger here. I don't get angry.
> like a lot of weak
Actually, I'm very strong willed, not weak willed, like you'd like to
suggest. This is you projecting these qualities on me.
> and ego-oriented individuals
This is an oxymoron. Ego in Latin means "I" and the word individual can
be compared to this "I". Unlike some fake gurus and spiritual teachers
out there, who claim they have no egos, I claim otherwise. I have ego.
Everyone has ego. Even you have ego my dear old pup!
> in this world, go pick a fight with the first like-minded individual
> you see
No, actually this debate has been going on forever awhile now, between
you and me, and between you and my guru. So when I kick your ass in the
public debate, it wasn't rushed into, it was thoroughly thought out and
planned. Remember? I said I was inviting my journalist friends. I
have release press releases for this kind of stuff. That means I have
to plan ahead.
> and land yourself a hospital bed,
See? It's all coming out. You want to put me in a hospital bed. Very
good. What else do you want to do to me? Be honest now!
> if not a fresh start in a
> new incarnation (God knows you need it).
Oh, goody. This is you threatening to take my life. I'm sorry, I'm not
willing to lose my life over you. But, I'll be happy to meet you head
on in that public debate.
> That will teach you not to
> threaten physical violence (maybe).
I never threated with physical violence. I made a challenge to meet you
in person and finish this with words, not violence. That is why I
continue to say, "public debate". Debate because that is what we are
doing here, and I think it would be more appropriate to continue this in
person. Public because there will be plenty of witnesses to testify who
won. And that way, your crazy thoughts of putting me in a hospital bed
or killing me won't take place.
>>Don't speak about your delusional cult leader like that. He will begin
>>crying since he is so lovey-dovey. Don't hurt his feelings like that.
>>You have to break his heart slowly, then depart his cult.
>
>
>
> Read again! The person of whom I was speaking, Daryl Pahimna, is not
> my delusional cult leader: he is yours! Again you have failed in basic
> comprehension of English. Follow your own advice given above if you
> value truth and freedom from delusion.
What? Your God Ned Waller is a crazy God? Yes, we know that. That's
why he wants to send you to kill me, or put me in a hospital bed at the
least.
>>Him, myself and other members of Our Congregation. That's who. Don't
>>be so stupid boy!
>
>
>
> You are the stupid one for taking such an obvious joke at his expense
> as an indication that I didnt know what he was saying!
Joke? Oh, now you are trying to be funny. Well, it didn't work. I'm
not laughing after your stupid "joke".
>>If his brain was damaged, he wouldn't be able to function properly.
>>People with damaged brains are unable to do many functions that the
>>common folk can do. You should have stuck with the whole "you're
>>delusional" bit.
>
>
>
> But he isnt able to function properly! His claim to being logical when
> he is being so blatantly illogical, saying he knows something as fact
> when he cannot possibly know it as such, is completely absurd and
> illogical!
Where is the evidence to back up this statement? Remember, this is my
High Court and you must provide solid evidence with all your statements.
> The reason you know what people with damaged brains cannot do is
> because your own brain is damaged,
People with damaged brains can't determine what is wrong with their
brains. That is why doctors look at them and tell them what is wrong,
or at the least, tell their friends and family members what is wrong.
Your lack of knowledge on this subject shows your moronic tendencies
clearly.
> probably because of the many fights
> you have picked with the wrong people!
Oh, first I was brain damaged, now it's because I pick fights. Make up
your mind. Jeez!
>
>
>
>>Okay weirdo. So you believe superhuman exist and they can swallow
>>rivers whole. You are the biggest dumbass on the planet. Really, you
>>are! If you believe superhumans can swallow rivers, then you might as
>>well believe Spiderman and Superman are real people.
>
>
>
> How many times must I tell you to read my post again? Your degree of
> non-comprehension of written English is astounding.
Frankly, your posts bore me. BOOOOOOORRRIIIIIIINNGG!
rand1...@webtv.net
You fucking slim covered rodent! Where did you get the nut sacks to
question the words of Yogananda and his Guru. You have are nothing.
Your are nothing. Your have no organization. You website is
embarrassing. You are a paraplegic scam artist. Your post are
pathetic, they are void of any true logic or reason, they validate your
total lack of development on any level, they are boring, they have the
charm of an unflushed toilet, they spread stench of yourself, your
personal slut and walking urnial Ms Sugerbum ( please take her picture
of the your site. This shrivled prune faced bitch is shattering the
screen on my computer. UGLY, UGLY and more UGLY) Salami JP Mitchell
of Arizona ( I will post his home phone number later today) an extremely
unintelligent termite brain with the wit and wisdom of Raymond Burr, and
R. Thomas the homo punk that is your traveling boytoy. Your BAY
organization of four hammerheads is polluting this board with a Satanic
like aroma ( shit smelling, like Ms. Sugerbums fly infested cunt).
Where the fuck is Lee Harvey Oswald when we need him?
Also, kindly explain the reference from your site www.onegreatpower.org,
under Charitable Work ( I did not know that stealing was charitable ) as
to why you are building a "cum dining area" for little boys. Doesn't
that already exist in your unwashed BVDs. If ever you return to the USA
I will see that the appropriate charges are pressed against you. Your
International Headquarters will then be a 2 man cell at a Federal
Correction Facility. You and your BAY blowhards truly keep the spirit
of lost souls like PT Barnum, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahamer, Charles
Mansion and Michael Jackson alive. What shame you bring to the world of
Yoga.
rand1...@webtv.net
I think the people of this board have noticed that you are not replying
to the MIGHTY RAND as in the past. It seems that you have taken more of
a pounding that you can give. You and your parade of cowards have
retreated from the Divine Wrath of RAND! Come out from under the bed
sissy boy.....unless of you are getting your ass licked by Ms. Sugerbum
your California Bulldyke corpses. This disgusting bitch is so old and
sun baked that she has had 3 autopsies performed on her while she was
going down on a group paralyzed elderly woman at the Mesona Nursing Home
in Los Angeles. Just hope that she doesn't kick the bucket before she
gets done with your shit encrusted rectum. I would also like your
comments on why The "Sister Atmananda Orphanage for Soon to be Abused
Children" needs
a "CUM DINING AREA" as described at www.onegreatpower.org (under
Charitable Works). Is this a new third world combination of protein
and multiple felonies wrapped into one? Please tell us about your
criminal past. Rand has found a wrap sheet on your longer than Mighty
Joe Young's roll of toilet paper. Why did BAY donate so much money to
organizations that have been shut down by the Federal Government as
being financially involved with 911 attack on America? How deep is
Nurse Darlys involvement with the Islamic terrorist in the Phipines?
Why does Nurse Darly spent so much time at the Iranian Embassy in the
UK? Spill the beans smega face!
By the way just for your information, Nurse Darlys last name of Pahima
translated into English is defined in most medical reference books as a
"a type of tape worm that migrates from the intestine of it's victims to
their ass pipes as they defecate and then returns to dine on the feses
that is forming in the lower intestine". What a coincidence....just
like the Sister herself!
In any event as I said in my earlier post thay you bring much shame to
the world of Yoga and your Jackal parents. Also expect your phone to
start ringing soon.
You thought that your phone number was private? Not if you have access
to the Lexis Nexus database. I will phone you at your tent in the
desert before the end of the day. Have some hankys around because when
I get done reprimanding you by Divine Mandate you will be quivering and
crying like a fritghtened pig on it's way to slaughter.
Hey.....that is whats happening anyway!
Talk to you later sweetypie.
THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SPOKEN
rand1...@webtv.net
HERE IS THE LOCATION AND TLEPHONE NUMBER OF THIS INSECT J.P. MITCHELL
AKA AS SWAMI
DA PRE/ SALAMI DA CUMANANDA:
(623) 572-8626
7418 WEST LOUISE DRIVE
GLENDALE, AZ 85310
I WILL POST MS. SUGERBUMS PHONE NUMBER LATER TODAY. SO FAR THE RAND
TEAM HAS ONLY COME UP WITH HER 900 SEX LINE NUMBER FOR PERVERTS THAT ARE
TURNED ON BY TALKING DIRTY WITH THE "LIVING DEAD".
seeker
> The stupid idiot is grandstanding again. It is evident that you are
> wholly unfamiliar with Vaishnava Philosophy. In Vaishnava Philosophy,
> the foremost authority on the subject of Vishnu, Krishna is the
> supreme personality of Godhead. The dasha avatars -- Matsya, Kurma,
> Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, etc. -- are all manifestations of Krishna.
> Vishnu is just a plenary expansion of Krishna. And since everything is
> Krishna, including the demigods Brahma and Shiva, of course Vishnu is
> also Shiva. But the fullness of divinity is in the personality of
> Krishna, not in his expressing himself as Vishnu. That is orthodox
> Vaishnava Philosophy for you.
Planery expansions? Who was it you were telling off for reading too
many ISKCON materials?
> Little? The guy is 6 foot 2.
He may be 6 foot 2, but he has about as much flesh on him as a
starving ethiopian. You talk of feeding children on your website while
your own staff are being poorly looked after.
Ive had enough of dealing with the nonsense that you guys are
promoting. Your good buddy Rand will no doubt keep you pre-occupied a
good while. This "stray dog" is going to go and lie in the sun while
you little ants are busy crawling around trying to keep the naughty
child from destroying their empty little nest.
Wise men discuss, fools argue and yes, and Ive been a fool for arguing
something you obviously will not accept. You can say what you like
about me "discrediting myself everytime I speak" but lets just leave
it up to the reader's opinion. They can decide for themselves what the
situation is and whether Krishna existed is a matter of their personal
opinion (including yours).
Good luck with your charitable activities (thats the one bit, if
genuine, that isnt nonsense)!!!
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03073...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ahhh, welcome to the spotlight little man,
>
> Welcome where? You are never there.
> >
> > I bet it took you the several days since my reply to your post to
> > conceive and formulate your pathetic attempt at a rebuttal.
>
> No, I am a very busy person. Not like you who lives in alms, I have a
> full-time job and an International organization to look after. Please
> do not imply that it took me even one second of preparation just to
> reply your moronic post. You are just my toy. I can effortlessly skin
> you alive.
>
> > You must
> > have been so busy with your many "organisational" demands that you
> > simply had no time to do this earlier.
>
> I really have no time for this, but I make time for it out of love and
> compassion for a stray dog like you.
>
>
> > > That will be Sat-Guru Brahman-Atmananda for you, anonymous coward.
> >
> >
> > No, it will always be Daryl.
>
> Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! The stray dog's ego that is
> as big as the Statue of Liberty is being shaken.
>
> > Your parents saw fit to name you as such
> > and that is what your true name will be to the end of your days.
>
> Tarantado! What do you know about my material name? It may not even be
> Daryl. How sure are you that it's really Daryl?
>
> > You
> > sure as hell didnt receive that laughable title from a person of
> > appropriate spiritual authority, so it means nothing.
>
> You have absolutely no idea about what you're barking about, stray
> dog.
>
> > Take note that
> > great masters do not go about proclaiming themselves as "Sat-Gurus".
>
> Really? Then why was Yogananda so keen into pointing out his elevation
> into the Paramhansa title by Swami Sri Yukteswar in his Autobiography?
> An event witnessed by no one else. Alright, he isn't a great master by
> your standard.
>
> > It is their disciples and followers who venerate them as such.
>
> Venerate? I am not being venerated by my disciples. We are all equals
> in BAY.
>
> > If anything your title should be "sad-guru" in recognition of the fact
> > that you are a sad and sorry excuse of an impostor who is pretending
> > to be a guru.
>
> "an *impostor* who is *pretending* to be"? Perhaps you will also say,
> "the night that was not day." It is a bit hard to speak with someone
> of your literary caliber, you know.
>
> >
> >
> > > So what? I say otherwise.
> >
> >
> > In all honesty, what you say carries very little weight with just
> > about anybody who might read it, except of course your delusional,
> > house-trained little pup of a watchdog, Da Prem.
>
> Little? The guy is 6 foot 2. Spiritually, you are just the size of his
> pinky toe. Intellectually, well ... just look at how easily he turn
> your own words into self-mockery. But a pup to you is a watchdog so
> you really have a different standard altogether.
>
> >
> >
> > > Because you're an idiot. Due to some moronic prejudice to our
> > > organization you ofted..
> >
> >
> > "Ofted" is not a word that occurs in the English language.
>
> And so does renunciant and lifetrons and metanormal and
> psychoenergetic etc. Some are content with just using what is already
> there, some are just too creative and too intelligent for that.
>
> > Go to your
> > trusty, well-worn, little dictionary and re-evaluate how you are
> > saying what you are attempting rather poorly to express.
>
> The problem lies in your ability to understand. Endeavor to improve
> your comprehension skills.
>
> >
> >
> > > We..
> > > maintain that these stories including that of a blue-skinned
> > > androgynous Krishna is nothing but Hindu mythology with deep inner
> > > significance and not history as you were erroneously led by your
> > > uneducated fanaticism to Yogananda's every word.
> >
> >
> > So what? I say otherwise.
>
> Yes, but what you say doesn't matter. The opinion of a stray dog is
> not important.
>
> > And I also maintain that you dont have
> > knowledge of the truth regarding this matter and that for all your
> > pretentious horn-blowing, you are nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
>
> For a person who firmly believes in the historical existence of a
> blue-skinned androgynous character who previously incarnated as a fish
> god, dwarf god, half-man/half-lion god etc. you have a lot of guts to
> even think that you actually have the ability to separate fact from
> fiction.
>
> >
> > Who is this "we"?
> > Of course! You are referring to the multiple
> > personalities within that damaged brain of yours.
>
> If everyone who uses the pronoun "we" in a sentence has a damaged
> brain and multiple personality disorder then there is already no hope
> for the world. Thank goodness you're wrong, as always.
>
> >
> >
> > > The facts that I am stating are most logical, valid and would stand
> > > under any level of scrutiny, while the opinion that Krishna *actually*
> > > incarnated as a half-man/half-lion god or that he once swallowed an
> > > entire river etc., if you take away the allegory or symbolism and
> > > embrace it as historical fact, is nothing but the dysfunctional
> > > musings of a religious lunatic.
> >
> >
> > What you are stating is not fact, it is your belief.
>
> No, it is not my belief. Krishna is a Hindu mythological character. It
> is a fact. The Mahabharata is an epic, it is not history. Read it and
> you will see.
>
>
> > The point being discussed was not whether Krishna had incarnated
> > literally as a half-man/half-creature in previous manifestations of
> > the Godhead
>
> I don't care about your point. The point of the discussion is I am
> stating the fact that Krishna is merely a character in an epic and you
> are vehemently opposing without proof, saying that Krishna actually
> existed at one point in history. That is the point.
>
> > (which by the way is referred to in scripture as being in
> > the aspect of Vishnu, not Krishna, which was the name given to only
> > one of those manifestations).
>
> The stupid idiot is grandstanding again. It is evident that you are
> wholly unfamiliar with Vaishnava Philosophy. In Vaishnava Philosophy,
> the foremost authority on the subject of Vishnu, Krishna is the
> supreme personality of Godhead. The dasha avatars -- Matsya, Kurma,
> Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, etc. -- are all manifestations of Krishna.
> Vishnu is just a plenary expansion of Krishna. And since everything is
> Krishna, including the demigods Brahma and Shiva, of course Vishnu is
> also Shiva. But the fullness of divinity is in the personality of
> Krishna, not in his expressing himself as Vishnu. That is orthodox
> Vaishnava Philosophy for you.
>
> > The point being discussed was whether
> > Krishna, as mentioned in scripture, was actually a real person and not
> > the figment of someone's imagination, as is your belief.
>
> That is not my belief. And I wasn't speaking about anyone's
> imagination. Other people's imaginations are irrelevant to me. What I
> am saying is that Krishna is a Hindu mythological character, everybody
> knows that. If you believe that he actually existed then you have to
> accept the entire package, including his dasha avatars and the
> fantastic stories of his childhood and manhood (e.g. marrying 16,000
> women).
>
> >
> > You say there is allegory and symbollism in the telling of His moving
> > a mountain and swallowing a river. This is quite possible, yet still
> > it does not mean that there was no Krishna.
>
> I did not say there was no Krishna, that is just your imagination. Of
> course there is a Krishna, he is a mythological character.
>
> >
> >
> > > No direct experience is required when speaking about the non-existence
> > > of something. How can anyone experience something (in this case a
> > > blue-skinned androgynous and sometimes multi-limbed mythological
> > > character) that is non-existent? And who in the world will require
> > > "direct experience" of the non-existent as proof of its non-existence?
> > > This is the kind of stupid reasoning you acquire with prolonged
> > > association with your "guru" Ned W. Waller.
> >
> >
> > When speaking about the non-existence of something, what is required
> > is the conviction that it does not exist based on the irrefutable
> > evidence that it does not/did not exist.
>
> Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! Incoherent bastard. There is
> no such thing as "irrefutable evidence that it does not exist." No
> evidence is necessary to prove the non-existence of anything because
> it simply does not exist. For example, if I say "A square-circle does
> not exist" I don't need any irrefutable evidence to prove that my
> statement is true. The obvious and immediate lack of a square-circle
> including the logical incongruency of the idea proves beyond a shadow
> of a doubt that what I said is true. What irrefutable evidence can
> anyone give to support the claim that a square circle does not exist?
> Nothing. And there is absolutely no need for it as in the case of
> Krishna.
>
> > You do not have this
> > evidence, therefore you cannot concretely claim it didnt exist.
>
> You don't need any evidence to prove the non-existence of anything, it
> simply does not exist.
>
> > How
> > can anyone deny something exists when it is impossible for them to
> > prove it doesnt exist? This is the kind of stupid reasoning that has
> > made you fall into this hole in the first place, you ignoramus.
> >
> > By the way, Ned Waller is not my Guru.
>
> Yes, he is your God.
>
> > If you truly were a Sat-Guru, a
> > qualification for whom must necessarily be omniscience
>
> Sez who? Sez you? Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! If that is
> the qualification then even Yogananda was not a Sat-Guru. He was
> unable to foresee that his hermitage will slide into the sea and
> crumble. That Dhirananda will leave him. That his organization will
> later forge his own signature and alter his teachings. And many other
> things which he failed to predict.
rand1...@webtv.net
I will keep the ladies busy!
seeker
On your site, http://www.onegreatpower.org/store.html, you advertise
the very book from which I was quoting my Guru's words, God Talks With
Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita - Royal Science of God Realization. So in
other words you are actually promoting the very materials which
contradict your opinion about Krishna.
You speak lowly of Gurudev, yet you wear a locket around your neck
with his picture on it; how utterly shameful!!
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > You wrote:
> >
> > > The stupid idiot is grandstanding again. It is evident that you are
> > > wholly unfamiliar with Vaishnava Philosophy. In Vaishnava Philosophy,
> > > the foremost authority on the subject of Vishnu, Krishna is the
> > > supreme personality of Godhead. The dasha avatars -- Matsya, Kurma,
> > > Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, etc. -- are all manifestations of Krishna.
> > > Vishnu is just a plenary expansion of Krishna. And since everything is
> > > Krishna, including the demigods Brahma and Shiva, of course Vishnu is
> > > also Shiva. But the fullness of divinity is in the personality of
> > > Krishna, not in his expressing himself as Vishnu. That is orthodox
> > > Vaishnava Philosophy for you.
> >
> >
> > Planery expansions? Who was it you were telling off for reading too
> > many ISKCON materials?
>
> What "Planery expansions" are you saying, stray dog? It's plenary. And
> of course what I said will match what ISKCON and Gaudiya Math
> materials have to say because I was speaking about Vaishnava
> Philosophy AND (duh) ISKCON and Gaudiya Math are Vaishnava
> organizations.
>
> >
> >
> > > Little? The guy is 6 foot 2.
> >
> >
> > He may be 6 foot 2, but he has about as much flesh on him as a
> > starving ethiopian. You talk of feeding children on your website while
> > your own staff are being poorly looked after.
>
> What? That person who is as robust as a tiger
> http://americanswami.typepad.com/photos/prem/cover-image-premaltar1.jpg
> you likened to a starving Ethiopian?
>
> >
> > Ive had enough of dealing with the nonsense that you guys are
> > promoting.
>
> The only person promoting nonsense here is you and your retarded alter
> ego Rant. Imagine propagating the idea that a blue-skinned androgynous
> sometimes multi-limbed Hindu mythological character is a historical
> personality.
>
> > Your good buddy Rand will no doubt keep you pre-occupied a
> > good while. This "stray dog" is going to go and lie in the sun
>
> Thank you for admitting that you really merit the stray dog nick.
>
> > while
> > you little ants
>
> Little ants? Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! Meaningless
> ranting of a desperate loser.
>
> > are busy crawling around trying to keep the naughty
> > child from destroying their empty little nest.
>
> Ants' nests are never empty unless they are completely destroyed, you
> ignoramus. And the child who is stupid enough to grab or step on it
> will be swamped by soldier ants.
>
> >
> > Wise men discuss, fools argue and yes, and Ive been a fool for arguing
> > something you obviously will not accept.
>
> It isn't the arguing that made you a fool; you have always been a
> fool, you fool.
>
> > You can say what you like
> > about me "discrediting myself everytime I speak" but lets just leave
> > it up to the reader's opinion.
>
> I don't care about the readers' opinions. You leave it to them if you
> want but don't say "us," ("lets" is short for let us) there is no us.
> Got it, stray dog?
>
> > They can decide for themselves what the
> > situation is and whether Krishna existed is a matter of their personal
> > opinion (including yours).
>
> Krishna's historical existence is not a matter of personal opinion. It
> is a matter of commonsense which you, unfortunately, have already lost
> due to years of being a junkie. 7X7=49 but you may be in the opinion
> that it is 48. Your opinion however does not alter the fact that the
> correct answer is 49. So 7X7=49 is never a matter of opinion but a
> matter of fact. That it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to lift
> an entire hill with his bare hands, swallow an entire river, toss a
> bunch of monster donkeys around like rug dolls, etc. (things that
> Krishna did according to Hindu mythology) is not a matter of opinion
> but a matter of fact. I really pity you Mr. Drug Addict for taking
> everything literally including Matthew 17:20 where Jesus said "If ye
> have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this
> mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and
> nothing shall be impossible unto you." Imagine using that to justify
> your belief that Krishna's lifting of Govardhana Hill really occured!
> You are nuts! That statement of Jesus was figurative, stray dog. I
> won't be surprised if you will also take Matthew 19:24 literally where
> Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
> needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." You're
> totally burned-out, societal filth.
>
> >
> > Good luck with your charitable activities (thats the one bit, if
> > genuine, that isnt nonsense)!!!
>
> Nonsense is never a part of our agenda, societal filth. We always do
> the most sensible things. I would like to give you an unsolicited
> advice. If you lost an argument (like what happened now) no matter how
> bitter you may feel it is always best to quit on your attempts to
> disparage the other party. Why? Because doing so makes you look so
> pathetic and desperate. You're just like a boxer whose face is already
> mangled, down and licking the canvas but still has the audacity to say
> "Hey, what a nonsense fighter you are! What are you at? Whether I lost
> or won is a matter of personal opinion!"
rand1...@webtv.net
rand1...@webtv.net
Swami Dâ Prem
rand1...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>
seeker
> >>Spell the word right, okay? It's organizational, not organisational.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bravo! You are finally learning to refine your use of English. I am
> > glad that Ive started you on the path by adding a few mis-spelled
> > words and incorrect syntax. See if you can find the others as well..
>
> Nya ha ha ha har! An old dog is trying to teach me new tricks in debate,
> eh?
>
> seeker: "Well, I made those mistakes in the debate on purpose."
>
> Prem: "Oh, really?"
>
> seeker: "Yeah, really. I want to make you a better person by finding my
> mistakes. I'm such a dumbass I thought I would help you and put my
> stupidity to good use."
Learning the correct use of English does not necessarily make you a
better person. You're such a dumbass, you thought you could make me
look bad by pointing out an obvious bit of fun I threw in there when
you (quite correctly) pointed out one of my own errors.
> Stop contradicting yourself here, boy! You said his disciples address
> him by his given spiritual name, but you say this, "he is and always
> will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna". If he was just plain old Daryl
> all the time, then his disciples would call him Daryl, but we don't. We
> have more respect for our guru than that. By at least one person
> addressing him by his given spiritual name, Brahman-Atmananda or
> Sat-Guru that makes your above statement false.
My statement cannot be made false in that way because it takes into
account his people calling him by that name..
> > His disciples throughout the world may address him by it but he is and
> > always will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna..
> Why are you so anxious to jump on this bandwagon? Are you going to
> right this holy man and complain about our guru? Nya ha ha ha! Do you
> really think I would put bullets in the gun and hand it the gun to you?
You yourself have said "put bullets in the gun" which means, whatever
evidence might be uncovered about Pahimna's assumption of a spiritual
title, it is bound to be incriminating, therefore you will not provide
me with that evidence. You say he is a holy man but you do not provide
his name or anything about his actual person that would bear this out.
Was he the same "being of light" that Pahimna claims to have been
visited by?
> Boy! You see, I don't really have to provide evidence in this court,
> since it is my court. Remember? I told you earlier that it was you,
> who had to show me evidence concerning Krishna and all your moronic ideas.
>
> Let me rephrase it for you, in words you can comprehend:
>
> THIS IS MY COURT.
Boy, you are beating a dead horse! You really do have to provide
evidence if you wish your argument to be at least initially considered
as valid. Remember? I told you earlier that it is not your court
because if it was you could throw me out of it, but Im still here!
> Of course, you have no proof of this, and since this is my court, you
> must provide proof of all your statements from now on. Anything that
> you say without providing solid evidence, will automatically be
> dismissed from this High Court. Do you understand?
Since this is not your court, anything that I say cannot be
automatically dismissed. Do you understand? What about your proof that
Krishna didnt really exist? Where is it? It is not!
> No, I'm just sticking up for my guru because this little dog keeps
> barking at his leg.
In an earlier thread you stated that you dont feel the need to stick
up for your "guru" because he can do that for himself. If the
perceived threat to him was really like a "little dog (that) keeps
barking at his leg.." why would you feel the need even to intervene?
> The testimonials of all our students will back up my statement. There
> is my evidence.
The general benefits of pranayam like kriya can be had by all, but
taking a soul in maya to the summit of freedom in God is a herculean
task, one that cannot be accomplished by one of such little stature as
Pahimna. You will see this is the case eventually.
> Remember? You can't over rule the judge in his own court.
Thankfully this is not your court and you are not a judge!
> Ha ha ha! Come to Arizona, email me when you get here, and we will pick
> a public place to hold a debate. I will even get my journalist friends
> to cover the debate. It'll be a hoot as I rub your face in your own dog
> poo!
You are wearing the brass crown of megalomania! This debate is about
as public as its going to be right now because no one gives a shit
about your crying in the wilderness. Your journalist "friends" most
likely look upon you as a clown who amuses them, unless they are also
part of your "world-wide organization".
> There is nothing violent about a public debate where hundreds to
> thousands of people can watch a spiritual personality take on a low dog
> like yourself. They will consider it entertainment as I make you eat
> your words.
Hundreds of thousands of people? Ha ha, thats really very funny :D
So is the term "spiritual personality". Do you think that they
consider you as spiritual for the mere fact that you (inappropriately)
wear robes and beads? Grow up!
> > You do not know who I am
>
> Yes, I do. You are a follower of the God Ned Waller.
>
> > or what I look like.
>
> It doesn't matter. When you get here, we have public debate, okay?
> Well, that's if your God Ned Waller gives you permission to do so.
>
> > I find it
> > amusing that you are so eager to fight regardless of that.
>
> No, not eager. It's because you wont come to Arizona to publicly debate
> a spiritual personality like myself.
If you think you know me, why keep claiming I am a follower of Ned
Waller? Its because you need to twist truth in order to support your
motive to discredit me.
It really doesnt matter, truth stands on its own.
> Oh, I've given it thought. I thought of all my friends and students
> that I'll tell, so they can show up and watch me debate you in public.
The only thought youve given it is the wildly delusional fantasy you
are dreaming up that you think will bring some sense of victory to
that hollow chamber you have for a heart. If you really want me to
come to Arizona, I will provide a bank account that you can put money
for a plane ticket into; I could use a holiday out in the sun. Come
on, dont you guys provide charity funds for the poor and
disadvantaged?
> I was never a bulley in school. You assume that I might be some sort of
> bulley, because I'm so good with words in a debate like this one.
Now that Ive had a chance to look at your picture I have to agree
wholeheartedly that you probably werent a bulley in school. You were
probably the one bullied relentlessly, which unfortunately contributed
to exactly the kind of inner need for friendship and support which has
landed you in the lap of a predator like Pahimna. The thing that
caused me to refer to you as bulley was when you said you would take
me on face to face anyday, which implied violence. You didnt mention
anything about some far-fetched public debate at the time.
> No anger here. I don't get angry.
Lies, I bet you thrive on it. Its what causes you to run around trying
to prevent your sham "guru" being told where its at, whenever someone
decides to go against the usual response of ignoring his meaningless
crap.
> Actually, I'm very strong willed, not weak willed, like you'd like to
> suggest. This is you projecting these qualities on me.
If you are truly strong-willed, as you claim, then you are mis-using
it in doing the things that youre doing. What a waste.
> This is an oxymoron. Ego in Latin means "I" and the word individual can
> be compared to this "I". Unlike some fake gurus and spiritual teachers
> out there, who claim they have no egos, I claim otherwise. I have ego.
> Everyone has ego. Even you have ego my dear old pup!
When I said "ego-oriented" individuals I referred to those who are
primarily acting negatively out of self-interest. Although its true
that technically ego means the sense of individuality, there is also
another meaning popularly attributed to the word; that of having a
"big-head" and behaving as though you are someone important. Of course
I technically have an ego like everyone else, I just dont allow it
(generally) to make me feel like Im better than others.
> No, actually this debate has been going on forever awhile now, between
> you and me, and between you and my guru. So when I kick your ass in the
> public debate, it wasn't rushed into, it was thoroughly thought out and
> planned. Remember? I said I was inviting my journalist friends. I
> have release press releases for this kind of stuff. That means I have
> to plan ahead.
Remember I told you to send me the money for a plane ticket? How about
it?
> See? It's all coming out. You want to put me in a hospital bed. Very
> good. What else do you want to do to me? Be honest now!
>
> > if not a fresh start in a
> > new incarnation (God knows you need it).
>
> Oh, goody. This is you threatening to take my life. I'm sorry, I'm not
> willing to lose my life over you. But, I'll be happy to meet you head
> on in that public debate.
>
> > That will teach you not to
> > threaten physical violence (maybe).
>
> I never threated with physical violence. I made a challenge to meet you
> in person and finish this with words, not violence. That is why I
> continue to say, "public debate". Debate because that is what we are
> doing here, and I think it would be more appropriate to continue this in
> person. Public because there will be plenty of witnesses to testify who
> won. And that way, your crazy thoughts of putting me in a hospital bed
> or killing me won't take place.
I assumed you threatened violence because you never mentioned a public
debate when you asked whether I would like to "say it to (your) face"
and that you would "take (me) on anyday." You never mentioned public
debate then. If debate is what is going on here, why do you feel the
need to take it to your place? Its because you need the support of
your "friends" and "students" and some sense of having won something
you cant possibly win. You cant win this debate because it deals with
something for which you have no concrete proof.
Your attempts at making me look like Im threatening your life are
laughable. Remember I told you the law of karma will act? You say that
you and Pahimna are great yogis like Sri Yukteswarji and that some
will face you and some will run away. Well, precisely because you
think you can act with the authority of a yogi like Sri Yikteswar, but
dont have the same degree of realization, some will face you, some
will run away and some will eventually punch you in the head and kick
you while youre down. Better be careful what you say to certain
people. Remember what happened to you in high school? It can still
happen!
> What? Your God Ned Waller is a crazy God? Yes, we know that. That's
> why he wants to send you to kill me, or put me in a hospital bed at the
> least.
For the last time, Ned Waller has nothing to do with this. Anyone who
knows anything about genuine kriya and yoga niketan knows what a
tremendous work he and his friends are doing for the world-wide kriya
community. It cannot be estimated in words how great an inspiration
the translated works of real kriya masters are on the yoga niketan
site. They are doing God's work!
> Joke? Oh, now you are trying to be funny. Well, it didn't work. I'm
> not laughing after your stupid "joke".
It is enough that I had a good laugh at it. Your opinion doesnt mean a
thing!
> Where is the evidence to back up this statement? Remember, this is my
> High Court and you must provide solid evidence with all your statements.
Remember, this is not your court and you must provide as much evidence
as you need to in order to prove your own case before the judge which
is truth itself. So far, this evidence has not been forthcoming.
> People with damaged brains can't determine what is wrong with their
> brains. That is why doctors look at them and tell them what is wrong,
> or at the least, tell their friends and family members what is wrong.
> Your lack of knowledge on this subject shows your moronic tendencies
> clearly.
> Oh, first I was brain damaged, now it's because I pick fights. Make up
> your mind. Jeez!
People with a fair degree of understanding know when something is
intended as an insult without factual basis in reality. Pahimna and
you dont really have damaged brains, which makes your behaviour that
much more inexplicable. If you did have damaged brains you would at
least have an excuse for acting the way you do. It is because your
brain is normal that you will reap the full results of your karmas.
> Frankly, your posts bore me. BOOOOOOORRRIIIIIIINNGG!
Frankly, if my posts bored you so much, you would not have bothered to
reply to them on the eve of your beloved Melissa's bodily funeral (yet
she lives - take heart from that, as I know you have already)! On a
lighter note, Im sorry for your loss in her. I know what it is like to
lose a loved one.
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<rASWa.22300$ff.7193@fed1read01>...
seeker
> Your "Guru" is Ned W. Waller. Snap out of this hashish-induced
> hallucination that Paramhansa Yogananda--a person whom you never met,
> never knew and never knew you--is your Guru.
Obviously you dont know the power of Yogananda, or you would not decry
him so. It is true, I have never met him in the flesh, but he has come
to me and made himself known to me beyond a shadow of a doubt! He is
omnipresent; that much I have seen! How unfortunate for you that you
did not continue on to realize the same thing. You didnt pass his test
of loyalty, so why should he come to you and make himself known? He
doesnt come to those who close their heart to him!
> The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> meaning." Regarding Yoganandaji's hype that Babaji was Krishna and he
> was Arjuna (in the same way that he mentioned in another publication
> the Three Wise Men to be Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar and
> on another occasion said that Sri Yukteswar was St. Francis of Assisi
> in a previous life) we simply ignore it. You don't need to accept
> every single sentence as factual in order to appreciate the
> self-transformative worth of a spiritual book; you weigh the content.
> In God Talks with Arjuna the 90% truth outweighs the 10% hype and
> opinion of an obvious (no matter how he tried to cover it) Hindu
> fanatic.
Wrong. The book does precisely that! It tells of how Krishna was a
real person, both a king and avatar. The passages I quoted bear this
out. You cannot deny it, it is fact! Its really quite ironic, you are
selling people the very book which will tell them how it really is
with Krishna. Just because you dont believe the stuff about the past
lives of these masters doesnt mean that it isnt true.
> I don't speak lowly of him, I idolize him.
Again you lie. Below is the evidence:
>> Yogananda said Krishna is real,
> So what? I say otherwise.
>> Take note that
>> great masters do not go about proclaiming themselves as
>> "Sat-Gurus".
> Really? Then why was Yogananda so keen into pointing out his elevation
> into the Paramhansa title by Swami Sri Yukteswar in his Autobiography?
> An event witnessed by no one else. Alright, he isn't a great master by
> your standard.
By the way..the title Paramahansa means Supreme Swan, a liberated
being whose perception is never-more circumscribed by maya. It does
not mean that he is necessarily a Sat-Guru, though he may be
fulfilling that role as well. And his elevation into the Paramahansa
state was witnessed by many people including C. Richard Wright and
other persons present in the ashram. Do not state things that arent
true. "It takes a Paramahansa to know a Paramahansa!" You are not such
a one so you have no right to claim anything about him.
> Sez who? Sez you? Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! If that is
> the qualification then even Yogananda was not a Sat-Guru. He was
> unable to foresee that his hermitage will slide into the sea and
> crumble. That Dhirananda will leave him. That his organization will
> later forge his own signature and alter his teachings. And many other
> things which he failed to predict.
If you knew anything about the life of a great master, you would
realize that his life is characterized by both a human consciousness
and the limitations of that state as well as a divine consciousness
and the limitless capacities of that state. This is the way that God
plays through a human being who has attained to the state of a master.
Can you, in your puniness, claim to posses even one iota of the
spiritual power and realization that was the hallmark of my great
Gurudev?
> Yogananda, though generally a fountain of wisdom,
> also had dogmatic sometimes stupid things to say.
You are unqualified to say such a thing. It is you who are dogmatic
and stupid and this is so blatantly obvious to anyone who happens to
read a single paragraph of your trash. A man is known by the company
he keeps, and you are easily known by the deluded, self-obsessed
nitwits you managed to con into your little game of playing pretend
guru.
> The only thing that is utterly shameful is the sectarian and
> judgemental opinion of a self-confessed drug addict who is in truth
> absolutely clueless about what he's blabbing about. Desperate to score
> that imaginary "point" against an agent of truth (truth is invincible)
> you continue to search for bullets in the candy store.
You are right in one respect Pahimna, truth IS invincible! It speaks
for itself, and what it speaks in your case is clear to anyone who
takes the time to discover what you are really about. I hope to God
you truly are providing charitable service for the poor and
disadvantaged; it is the only thing in your favor.
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03080...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Societal filth, Andre the drug addict wrote:
>
> > On your site, http://www.onegreatpower.org/store.html, you advertise
> > the very book from which I was quoting my Guru's words,
>
> Your "Guru" is Ned W. Waller. Snap out of this hashish-induced
> hallucination that Paramhansa Yogananda--a person whom you never met,
> never knew and never knew you--is your Guru.
>
> > God Talks With
> > Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita - Royal Science of God Realization. So in
> > other words you are actually promoting the very materials which
> > contradict your opinion about Krishna.
>
> The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> meaning." Regarding Yoganandaji's hype that Babaji was Krishna and he
> was Arjuna (in the same way that he mentioned in another publication
> the Three Wise Men to be Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar and
> on another occasion said that Sri Yukteswar was St. Francis of Assisi
> in a previous life) we simply ignore it. You don't need to accept
> every single sentence as factual in order to appreciate the
> self-transformative worth of a spiritual book; you weigh the content.
> In God Talks with Arjuna the 90% truth outweighs the 10% hype and
> opinion of an obvious (no matter how he tried to cover it) Hindu
> fanatic.
>
> > You speak lowly of Gurudev, yet you wear a locket around your neck
> > with his picture on it;
>
> I don't speak lowly of him, I idolize him. At one point in time I was
> also like you, one who maintained a silly fantasy that I was his
> disciple. I composed two songs dedicated to him, pioneered his work in
> our area and led a meditation group that is thriving. When I began
> accepting disciples, it was after my second visit to India, members of
> that meditation group wanted to join me. But I avoided them and when
> cornered told them that it would be best for them to stay in the
> organization Yogananda founded out of my respect to the Guru-disciple
> relationship that they have already established (in their imagination)
> through the organization. In the Philippines I have initiated at least
> three hundred persons. But once I've been told that an applicant is a
> Kriyaban card holder of SRF I decline their request; except in the
> case of perhaps two or three who were exceptionally persuasive. You
> must understand that admiration does not necessitate acceptance of
> even absurd ideas. Yogananda, though generally a fountain of wisdom,
> also had dogmatic sometimes stupid things to say.
>
> > how utterly shameful!!
>
> The only thing that is utterly shameful is the sectarian and
> judgemental opinion of a self-confessed drug addict who is in truth
> absolutely clueless about what he's blabbing about. Desperate to score
> that imaginary "point" against an agent of truth (truth is invincible)
> you continue to search for bullets in the candy store.
Swami Dâ Prem
> better person. You're such a dumbass, you thought you could make me
> look bad by pointing out an obvious bit of fun I threw in there when
> you (quite correctly) pointed out one of my own errors.
And you have also adapted to my usage of the word, "dumbass", when you
once told me to spell it "dumb ass". You aren't that clever, because
you used that in arguement and now you use "dumbass", thus
subconsciously you have agreed that my usage was far superior than yours.
>>Stop contradicting yourself here, boy! You said his disciples address
>>him by his given spiritual name, but you say this, "he is and always
>>will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna". If he was just plain old Daryl
>>all the time, then his disciples would call him Daryl, but we don't. We
>>have more respect for our guru than that. By at least one person
>>addressing him by his given spiritual name, Brahman-Atmananda or
>>Sat-Guru that makes your above statement false.
>
>
>
> My statement cannot be made false in that way because it takes into
> account his people calling him by that name..
Yes, his disciples do call him that (Guru, Sat-Guru, Sat-Guru Da,
Guruji, Brahman-Atmananda and/or Brother Brahman-Atmananda), but you
implied he was otherwise by stating, "he is and always will be just
plain old Daryl...".
>>>His disciples throughout the world may address him by it but he is and
>>>always will be just plain old Daryl Pahimna..
>
>
>
>>Why are you so anxious to jump on this bandwagon? Are you going to
>>right this holy man and complain about our guru? Nya ha ha ha! Do you
>>really think I would put bullets in the gun and hand it the gun to you?
>
>
>
> You yourself have said "put bullets in the gun" which means, whatever
> evidence might be uncovered about Pahimna's assumption of a spiritual
> title,
No, it means I don't want you to have such information. It like us
teachers in Kriya Yoga, if we don't think a student is ready for Kriya,
for whatever reasons, we don't have to give it to them. Yogananda did
this to a lady, when she flew all the way from Europe, and he denied her
initiation. You see, Kriya Yoga can be kept secret by those who have it.
I don't want to give you the information pertaining to the man who gave
my guru his spiritual title and who recognizes him as an Acharya of
Sanatan Dharma.
it is bound to be incriminating, therefore you will not provide
> me with that evidence.
Incriminating? Ha ha ha! I didn't know names were incriminating these
days?
You say he is a holy man but you do not provide
> his name or anything about his actual person that would bear this out.
And I don't need to give you anything. In my eyes, you are scum!
> Was he the same "being of light" that Pahimna claims to have been
> visited by?
No, this is someone else. This is a man that lives in India, and
according to Swami Order customs, this man shouldn't leave India either.
>>Boy! You see, I don't really have to provide evidence in this court,
>>since it is my court. Remember? I told you earlier that it was you,
>>who had to show me evidence concerning Krishna and all your moronic ideas.
>>
>>Let me rephrase it for you, in words you can comprehend:
>>
>>THIS IS MY COURT.
>
>
>
> Boy, you are beating a dead horse!
Yes, I'm beating you, "a dead horse!"
> You really do have to provide
> evidence if you wish your argument to be at least initially considered
> as valid.
Why should I? When you have said yourself, that I have beaten a dead horse!
> Remember? I told you earlier that it is not your court
> because if it was you could throw me out of it, but Im still here!
It's my court, and I haven't thrown you out yet, that's why you are
still here. I like toying with you every once in awhile.
>>Of course, you have no proof of this, and since this is my court, you
>>must provide proof of all your statements from now on. Anything that
>>you say without providing solid evidence, will automatically be
>>dismissed from this High Court. Do you understand?
>
>
>
> Since this is not your court, anything that I say cannot be
> automatically dismissed.
Yes, it can, that's why I ignore such stupid questions, and give you
answers and arguements that keep you sidetracked from actually
overthrowing this court of mine.
> Do you understand?
No, it's you that doesn't understand.
>What about your proof that
> Krishna didnt really exist? Where is it? It is not!
Yes, you are correct here, there is no proof that Krishna existed as a
real human being. Yet, there is proof that Krishna was a mythical
character. I present the whole Mahabharata, an epic story, including
the Bhagavad Gita as my proof.
>>No, I'm just sticking up for my guru because this little dog keeps
>>barking at his leg.
>
>
>
> In an earlier thread you stated that you dont feel the need to stick
> up for your "guru" because he can do that for himself.
Okay? So? Why don't you go look for that statement, re-read it, make
it I used it in that context, and if I did, then present it here in my
court, and we will see if it holds up. If you can't find it, too bad,
you lose!
> If the
> perceived threat to him was really like a "little dog (that) keeps
> barking at his leg.." why would you feel the need even to intervene?
Threat? Who said you were a threat to him? I said a little dog barking
at his leg. You are merely barking, not biting. Barking isn't really a
threat in my eyes.
>>The testimonials of all our students will back up my statement. There
>>is my evidence.
>
>
>
> The general benefits of pranayam like kriya can be had by all, but
> taking a soul in maya to the summit of freedom in God is a herculean
> task, one that cannot be accomplished by one of such little stature as
> Pahimna.
So, what you are saying is that people low on the totem pole don't even
have a chance? Let us not pin this on my guru. You open up something
that should actually be addressed.
People, anyone living in sin and lowly, living a bad and improper life,
even if they practice Kriya Pranayam, don't have a chance. That is what
you are saying, right?
Then, how in the hell do they get to the pinnacle of freedom, if not
without the aid of Kriya Yoga?
Stupid idiot! With your disgust for my guru, you put down everyone that
deserves to have Kriya Yoga in their life. You disgust me, you should
be wiped off the face of the earth! You scum!
If the ones that deserve it, can't have it, then who does it belong too?
Let me quote one of my favorite spiritual teachers and leave it on this
note, not only for you, but for anyone else who may read this now, or in
the future.
"And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many
publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And
when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your
Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said
unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance." - Matthew 9:10-13
Even the lowly still have a chance! Even you!
rand1...@webtv.net
and your group of Philipino dog dining degenerates that "OPERATION BAY
FLUSH" is getting close to putting your poop group out off business for
good. Rand has registered the appropriate DNS and in a couple of weeks
a website lampooning you idiots back to the dark ages will make you
ladies the laughing stock of the web. I already have an artist working
on renderings of you, Chinkie Boy Daryl, Sister Nagasaki (Ms. Sugerbum)
and the Downs Syndrome sissy R. Thomas. When this well know artist saw
you picture this was her reaction "I'd rather fuck the Elephant Man than
this lice infected skeleton". Lets face it Johnny, you are one ugly
mother fucker. Is that pus wreaking twat Sugerbum your mother. Fuck!
What a goddam freakshow BAY is.
Well Uncle Rand has to get busy finishing
porking Darlyalina Puhima (you know whos sister I am talking about) with
his 12 inch pecker named "SIMBA". Hey...not a bad deal for $5.00 per
hour to give the bitch a facial. By the way she's paying me the $5.00.
I am a generous kind of guy.
Well good night Twinkle Toes Johnny Boy.
Uncle Rand will have something special to go up your ass tomorrow.
Ta Ta.
THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!
seeker
> And you have also adapted to my usage of the word, "dumbass", when you
> once told me to spell it "dumb ass". You aren't that clever, because
> you used that in arguement and now you use "dumbass", thus
> subconsciously you have agreed that my usage was far superior than yours.
Goose! If you remember correctly you would note that I called you out
for referring to my ass as a "dumbass" (incorrect usage), whereas I am
addressing you by that title directly, in which case the correct usage
is "dumbass".
Again youve just betrayed your total ignorance about certain aspects
of English.
> Yes, his disciples do call him that (Guru, Sat-Guru, Sat-Guru Da,
> Guruji, Brahman-Atmananda and/or Brother Brahman-Atmananda), but you
> implied he was otherwise by stating, "he is and always will be just
> plain old Daryl...".
Thats right I did and I was right.
> No, it means I don't want you to have such information. It like us
> teachers in Kriya Yoga, if we don't think a student is ready for Kriya,
> for whatever reasons, we don't have to give it to them. Yogananda did
> this to a lady, when she flew all the way from Europe, and he denied her
> initiation. You see, Kriya Yoga can be kept secret by those who have it.
>
> I don't want to give you the information pertaining to the man who gave
> my guru his spiritual title and who recognizes him as an Acharya of
> Sanatan Dharma.
No, it means you dont want me to have such information because it
would be possible then to prove that Pahimna is a fake! Whoever heard
of a true monastic or spiritual leader hiding the identity of the
person who initiated him into the order, or who gave him his spiritual
name? He should be straight-up and divulge the information like all
true spiritual leaders, who have nothing to hide because they arent
frauds.
> Incriminating? Ha ha ha! I didn't know names were incriminating these
> days?
Names are not incriminating you silly buffoon. What would be
incriminating would be the evidence that Pahimna's claim to his
assumed spiritual title is fraudulent. This evidence would come out if
you gave up the name of the alleged bona-fide holy man who gave him
the name. One could then investigate and uncover the truth. You dont
know a lot of things!
> And I don't need to give you anything. In my eyes, you are scum!
I couldnt care less what I look like to your beady eyes. You profess
to being a Swami but your behaviour and manners are worse than the
average human being. Youre bogus, a real fraud just like your
"sad-guru" Pahimna
> No, this is someone else. This is a man that lives in India, and
> according to Swami Order customs, this man shouldn't leave India either.
So far you make claims without backing it up with evidence. It means
nothing.
According to the Swami order customs, a Swami doesnt hide the identity
of the one who initiated him into the order. Just as a professional
man has certain credentials which make his claim that he knows what he
is doing in his field valid (such as where he studied, where he got
his degree, etc.), so does a Swami need to provide details of his
lineage and initiation into the order, such as who initiated him,
where and when, etc.
> Yes, I'm beating you, "a dead horse!"
>
> > You really do have to provide
> > evidence if you wish your argument to be at least initially considered
> > as valid.
>
> Why should I? When you have said yourself, that I have beaten a dead horse!
The only dead horse you are beating is your tired argument which
doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
> It's my court, and I haven't thrown you out yet, that's why you are
> still here. I like toying with you every once in awhile.
> Yes, it can, that's why I ignore such stupid questions, and give you
> answers and arguements that keep you sidetracked from actually
> overthrowing this court of mine.
Youre not toying with me you nitwit; you lost your right to be seen as
a logical, decent, truth-telling fellow a long time ago and everyone
who reads your posts, aside from your fellow BAY cultists, who have
been brain-washed, can see this very plainly. Toy with that!
So its your court? Go on, throw me out!!
> Yes, you are correct here, there is no proof that Krishna existed as a
> real human being. Yet, there is proof that Krishna was a mythical
> character. I present the whole Mahabharata, an epic story, including
> the Bhagavad Gita as my proof.
O blind fool, if you read the same version of the Gita that you are
advertising on your site you would see it contradicts your own
opinion. So much for Swami-like integrity, you fraud!
> Okay? So? Why don't you go look for that statement, re-read it, make
> it I used it in that context, and if I did, then present it here in my
> court, and we will see if it holds up. If you can't find it, too bad,
> you lose!
You and I both know you wrote it in a previous thread.
> Threat? Who said you were a threat to him? I said a little dog barking
> at his leg. You are merely barking, not biting. Barking isn't really a
> threat in my eyes.
I implied it was a perceived threat in your eyes only. I dont need to
bite pahimna, the truth has already bitten him in the ass.
> So, what you are saying is that people low on the totem pole don't even
> have a chance? Let us not pin this on my guru. You open up something
> that should actually be addressed.
>
> People, anyone living in sin and lowly, living a bad and improper life,
> even if they practice Kriya Pranayam, don't have a chance. That is what
> you are saying, right?
>
> Then, how in the hell do they get to the pinnacle of freedom, if not
> without the aid of Kriya Yoga?
I never said that. If people want liberation through the practice of
kriya they need to receive it from an authorized channel and have a
true Guru who guides them to that consumation. Pahimna is neither an
authorized kriya-teacher and neither is he a true Guru.
The benefits that people attest to in your testimonials page express
the same benefits that practice of pranayam can potentially give to
all people, it does not indicate Pahimna is some genuine teacher or
guide.
> Stupid idiot! With your disgust for my guru, you put down everyone that
> deserves to have Kriya Yoga in their life. You disgust me, you should
> be wiped off the face of the earth! You scum!
I dont put down anyone who deserves to have kriya. Pahimna is doing
that by giving them a false sense that he can guide them to the goal
of liberation.
Heh, and I suppose either you or one of your cronies is going to wipe
me from the face of the earth? If I am scum why is it you are the one
who stinks of fraud, lies and deception?
> If the ones that deserve it, can't have it, then who does it belong too?
The ones that deserve it, get it! Unfortunately the ones who get it
through BAY have for their own karmic reasons deserved a rather poor
quality kriya because an essential ingredient is the guidance and
blessings of a true Guru, not a liar and a fraud like Pahimna.
> "And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many
> publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And
> when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your
> Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said
> unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
> sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
> sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
> repentance." - Matthew 9:10-13
>
> Even the lowly still have a chance! Even you!
Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote
out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye.
Swami Dâ Prem <baysw...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8%GXa.26534$ff.2769@fed1read01>...
Swami Dâ Prem
>>once told me to spell it "dumb ass". You aren't that clever, because
>>you used that in arguement and now you use "dumbass", thus
>>subconsciously you have agreed that my usage was far superior than yours.
>
>
>
> Goose! If you remember correctly you would note that I called you out
> for referring to my ass as a "dumbass" (incorrect usage), whereas I am
> addressing you by that title directly, in which case the correct usage
> is "dumbass".
> Again youve just betrayed your total ignorance about certain aspects
> of English.
No, no, no. You have adapted to my usage of "dumbass". Get over it,
you lost this one. You either use dumb ass or dumbass. It really
doesn't make a big difference how you use it, everyone knows what it
means, but since you made a big deal about it before and used it as an
arguement, I bring it up now.
Simply, everyone can see you have adapted to my usage of the word.
>>Yes, his disciples do call him that (Guru, Sat-Guru, Sat-Guru Da,
>>Guruji, Brahman-Atmananda and/or Brother Brahman-Atmananda), but you
>>implied he was otherwise by stating, "he is and always will be just
>>plain old Daryl...".
>
>
>
> Thats right I did and I was right.
And this makes half your statement false. When half the statement is
false, the whole statement becomes false. When you have a tainted
statement, you must make that statement again, but when you are given
the second chance to do so, you must correct your statement, removing
that which is false.
>>No, it means I don't want you to have such information. It like us
>>teachers in Kriya Yoga, if we don't think a student is ready for Kriya,
>>for whatever reasons, we don't have to give it to them. Yogananda did
>>this to a lady, when she flew all the way from Europe, and he denied her
>>initiation. You see, Kriya Yoga can be kept secret by those who have it.
>>
>>I don't want to give you the information pertaining to the man who gave
>>my guru his spiritual title and who recognizes him as an Acharya of
>>Sanatan Dharma.
>
>
>
> No, it means you dont want me to have such information because it
> would be possible then to prove that Pahimna is a fake!
No, idiot! I simply don't want to give it to you. You are my enemey.
Would I give you my home address and the like? No, of course not, you'd
bother me for the rest of my life. I want to protect this holy man from
your stupidity. He is a respectable man and doesn't bother with such
filth like you. But, if you showed up on his doorstep, you'd blab your
mouth nonstop, and I'd feel sorry for what I did to this holy man. I'd
be like, "What have I done? Now _________________ has to put up with
this filth of the earth!"
> Whoever heard
> of a true monastic or spiritual leader hiding the identity of the
> person who initiated him into the order, or who gave him his spiritual
> name?
I'm not hiding it. I'm just not telling you. If you weren't a moron,
you'd know who I speak about all this time. But, since you have two
cherries for a brain, you are incapable of doing things on your own.
Rather, you bed and plead to find out who this holy man is directly from
me. I don't like beggers. They should do things on their own.
> He should be straight-up and divulge the information like all
> true spiritual leaders, who have nothing to hide because they arent
> frauds.
When Yogananda got to America, he wanted to be the greatest Yoga Master
alive. He didn't tell anyone about Babaji or Lahiri Mahasaya, expect
maybe a select few that he chose, for years. A true spiritual leader
isn't a true spiritual leader based on who he knows or what lineage he
comes from. A true spiritual leader is a true spiritual leader because
he has the Divine Consciousness flowing in him and he has mastered that
Divine Consciousness.
>>Incriminating? Ha ha ha! I didn't know names were incriminating these
>>days?
>
>
>
> Names are not incriminating you silly buffoon.
Yes, buffoon, you are silly.
>What would be
> incriminating would be the evidence that Pahimna's claim to his
> assumed spiritual title is fraudulent.
There is no evidence that will EVER incriminate my guru for this crime
you are trying to charge him with.
> This evidence would come out if
> you gave up the name of the alleged bona-fide holy man who gave him
> the name.
Don't look for me to give you this information. Why don't you travel
India boy, and see what you can find? Trust me, you'll have more
success there, than me telling who this holy man is.
> One could then investigate and uncover the truth.
Yes, go investigate on your own, I will not help one of my enemies.
> You dont
> know a lot of things!
And yes, you could actually be right about this. There are many things
I don't know. I never claimed to know everything there is. But what I
do know, I know well, and I would say that is quite a bit.
>>And I don't need to give you anything. In my eyes, you are scum!
>
>
>
> I couldnt care less what I look like to your beady eyes. You profess
> to being a Swami but your behaviour and manners are worse than the
> average human being.
You don't even know what a Swami is.
>Youre bogus, a real fraud just like your
> "sad-guru" Pahimna
I've never heard of this sad-guru fellow. Oh, wait! He's your "guru"
Ned Waller.
>>No, this is someone else. This is a man that lives in India, and
>>according to Swami Order customs, this man shouldn't leave India either.
>
>
>
> So far you make claims without backing it up with evidence. It means
> nothing.
> According to the Swami order customs, a Swami doesnt hide the identity
> of the one who initiated him into the order.
Says who? You aren't a Swami, so how would you know the customs? You
don't, because you aren't a Swami. On the other hand, I'm the youngest
American-born Swami living currently in America. I'm the youngest
American on record to carry the title, "Swami". Of course, if you knew
anything about the Swami Order, or Sanatan Dharma, you'd know exactly
where to look. But you don't. You are a self-confessed drug addict,
who is utterly confused and can't clearly win this debate against me or
my guru.
Just as a professional
> man has certain credentials which make his claim that he knows what he
> is doing in his field valid (such as where he studied, where he got
> his degree, etc.), so does a Swami need to provide details of his
> lineage and initiation into the order,
Yes, agreeded. But we provide these to the appropriate people. Since
you belong to Ned Waller, and you are our enemey, we don't have to
provide you with shit!
END OF MESSAGE
Swami Dâ Prem
> those Indian kriyabans who hold the copyright to crappy old books into
> letting him publish them in the Net while he takes all the credit as
> "ordained priest of Kriya Yoga"?
> http://www.csudh.edu/philosophy/classes/pages/banner_ad.htm and
> http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:OSxevt4vvKMJ:www.csudh.edu/philosophy/waller/downloadables/CCH_final.doc+%22ned+waller%22+kriya&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> Or are you still referring to PARAMHANSA Yogananda? Someone whom you
> never met, never knew and never knew you.
Dr. Waller? PhD? Priest of Kriya Yoga? Ha ha ha har! Now, that's funny!
rand1...@webtv.net
Uncle Rand sees that you have to much time on your hand. In about 2
weeks Rand's "Project Bay Flush" site will be up and running. Believe
me....you will be so busy answering the questions raised by the INSIDE
stories being given to Rand by several CURRENT members of BAY that you
will have to give up your 2nd shift as the grease jockey at the Iranian
fish and chips joint that is now the focus of your life!
"Project Bay Flush" will soon be dropping you and your and zombie
followers where the light does not shine!
Good night honey bun,
THE MIGHTY RAND HAS SPOKEN!!!!
rand1...@webtv.net
I think that it is only fair to warn you that Rand has several "plants"
in your organization. The information that they are passing on to us
will put and end to your anti-Christ carnival and league of dweebs ( you
being the most pathetic ).
This also extends to Sister Nagasaki's
(Ms. Sugerbum) area. Prune face will soon have an interesting
experience with an individual that she believes is a serious follower of
your moronic ideas.
PS. Did Chinky Boy talk with your dead friend yet to find out where
your crack pipe is? What a shame. Now I know why you we so upset at
her demise.
Well sleep tight Twinkle Toes and remember that every day Uncle Rand
will have a new surprise for you.
seeker
Ive had enough of your baseless rants. You call me drug addict when I
dont even take drugs. I used to smoke a bit when I was younger, now I
do not, so how am I a drug addict? You must be the one who takes
drugs; you and your bum-chum Da Prem (who actually looks like a
junkie)!
Whatever you have to say about my Guru doesnt mean shit. I know what I
know and what I have experienced. You cannot possibly know these
things, you are reaching for straws. A true Guru is omnipresent and
can come to his disciples drawn by the irresistable magnet of their
love. Your silly denial of these truths is founded in your inability
to experience the same because of your bad attitude and vanity.
I havent lost this argument at all. Ive already shown how you, in your
total ignorance, are promoting the very book in which my Guru tells
people otherwise about Krishna than what your mere opinion is. It is
clear you are so far gone you will not face facts and truth any
longer.
No I dont mean "hearts", although that would be valid also. People, no
matter how many of them I am referring to, all have only one heart,
not many. Therefore it is equally valid to state it that way. Go ask
an English teacher.
This pointless bickering with you is a lost cause and I dont care for
it any longer, but at least people have had an opportunity to weigh up
your argument and mine and realize you are being thrashed concretely.
No matter what you say the evidence of your ignorance is present and
will be seen by all.
So, kiss my ass Daryl Pahimna! You and your moronic bunch of
proselyters can drown in ignorance for all I care. I do not wish it on
you but you brought it on yourselves.
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Andre the drug addict from Perth, Australia wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Your "Guru" is Ned W. Waller. Snap out of this hashish-induced
> > > hallucination that Paramhansa Yogananda--a person whom you never met,
> > > never knew and never knew you--is your Guru.
> >
> >
> > Obviously you dont know the power of Yogananda, or you would not decry
> > him so.
>
> I do not decry him. I don't care about his so-called powers. He was an
> ordinary man like everyone else. He is dead and has been dead many
> years before you were even born. He is a person whom you never met,
> never knew and never knew you. No Guru-disciple relationship can be
> established between a Guru who has been dead since 1952 and someone
> who is presently just in his early twenties. It is a stupid fantasy,
> stray dog. WAKE UP!
>
> > It is true, I have never met him in the flesh,
>
> You never met him in any way: in the flesh, by telephone, by postal
> correspondence, by electronic correspondence, etc. Never. You are
> associating yourself with somebody who is completely unaware of you
> existence.
>
> > but he has come
> > to me and made himself known to me beyond a shadow of a doubt!
>
> You are a drug addict. You are not well. Your brain is not functioning
> as it should be because you are continuously poisoning it with
> hallucinogens. You are a weak-willed individual with no respect for
> your body. You are sick. What came to you beyond a shadow of a doubt
> is hashish-induced hallucination.
>
> > He is
> > omnipresent; that much I have seen!
>
> Yeah, I'm sure;-))
>
> > How unfortunate for you that you
> > did not continue on to realize the same thing. You didnt pass his test
> > of loyalty,
>
> He is no position to test anyone. The guy--no matter how great he
> was--is dead, Andre. WAKE UP!
>
> > so why should he come to you and make himself known?
>
> I don't know. I never desired that anyway.
>
> > He
> > doesnt come to those who close their heart to him!
>
> Do you mean their heart*s*? I never closed my heart for Paramhansaji,
> he is still one of my biggest heroes. I'm a fan of his works, the real
> ones. I sincerely believe that he was enlightened.
>
> >
> >
> > > The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> > > the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> > > to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> > > meaning." Regarding Yoganandaji's hype that Babaji was Krishna and he
> > > was Arjuna (in the same way that he mentioned in another publication
> > > the Three Wise Men to be Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar and
> > > on another occasion said that Sri Yukteswar was St. Francis of Assisi
> > > in a previous life) we simply ignore it. You don't need to accept
> > > every single sentence as factual in order to appreciate the
> > > self-transformative worth of a spiritual book; you weigh the content.
> > > In God Talks with Arjuna the 90% truth outweighs the 10% hype and
> > > opinion of an obvious (no matter how he tried to cover it) Hindu
> > > fanatic.
> >
> >
> > Wrong. The book does precisely that! It tells of how Krishna was a
> > real person, both a king and avatar. The passages I quoted bear this
> > out. You cannot deny it, it is fact!
>
> There, there stray dog. Calm down. Take a deep breath and re-read what
> I've said about those parts of the book that says Krishna was a
> historical figure. I said:
>
> <quote>
> > > The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> > > the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> > > to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> > > meaning." Regarding Yoganandaji's hype that Babaji was Krishna and he
> > > was Arjuna (in the same way that he mentioned in another publication
> > > the Three Wise Men to be Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar and
> > > on another occasion said that Sri Yukteswar was St. Francis of Assisi
> > > in a previous life) we simply ignore it. You don't need to accept
> > > every single sentence as factual in order to appreciate the
> > > self-transformative worth of a spiritual book; you weigh the content.
> > > In God Talks with Arjuna the 90% truth outweighs the 10% hype and
> > > opinion of an obvious (no matter how he tried to cover it) Hindu
> > > fanatic.
> </quote>
>
> See? I never denied that that was his stand. From the very beginning I
> have always been transparent of my disagreement with his "Babaji was
> Krishna, I was Arjuna in a previous life" hype.
>
> > Its really quite ironic, you are
> > selling people the very book which will tell them how it really is
> > with Krishna.
>
> Again I have addressed this anxiety of yours, stray dog.
>
> <quote>
> > > The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> > > the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> > > to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> > > meaning."
> </quote>
>
> See?
>
> > Just because you dont believe the stuff about the past
> > lives of these masters doesnt mean that it isnt true.
>
> It is not a of question belief. I have no beliefs regarding this
> matter. It is plain commonsense. A blue-skinned androgynous sometimes
> multi-limbed Hindu mythological character who tossed monster donkeys
> around like rug dolls as a child, lifted an entire hill with his bare
> hands, swallowed an entire river, and married 16,000 women cannot be a
> historical personality.
>
> >
> >
> > > I don't speak lowly of him, I idolize him.
> >
> >
> > Again you lie. Below is the evidence:
> >
> >
> > >> Yogananda said Krishna is real,
>
> > > So what? I say otherwise.
>
> Yes, so what if he said Krishna was real? I don't care about his
> sectarian opinion regarding this matter. But does it mean that I lied
> when I said I idolize him? I already addressed this matter in my
> previous post:
>
> <quote>
> > You
> > must understand that admiration does not necessitate acceptance of
> > even absurd ideas.
> </quote>
>
> Very clear, isn't it?
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Take note that
> > >> great masters do not go about proclaiming themselves as
> > >> Sat-Gurus.
>
> > > Really? Then why was Yogananda so keen into pointing out his elevation
> > > into the Paramhansa title by Swami Sri Yukteswar in his Autobiography?
> > > An event witnessed by no one else. Alright, he isn't a great master by
> > > your standard.
> >
> >
> > By the way..the title Paramahansa means Supreme Swan, a liberated
> > being whose perception is never-more circumscribed by maya. It does
> > not mean that he is necessarily a Sat-Guru,
>
> Of course it does. A Paramhansa (not Paramahansa, go here to see the
> forgery of your organization http://www.yogananda-dif.org/forgPY.htm)
> is a Hindu honorific usually given to acharyas who managed to get an
> International following (Jagatgurus or World Teachers). There is no
> Paramhansa (Supreme Gander) acharya who is not a Sat-Guru (Truth
> Teacher).
>
> > though he may be
> > fulfilling that role as well. And his elevation into the Paramahansa
> > state was witnessed by many people including C. Richard Wright and
> > other persons present in the ashram. Do not state things that arent
> > true.
>
> IGNORANT LIAR! STUPID IDIOT MORON! PROFOUNDLY MENTALLY-RETARDED
> JUNKIE! Sri Yukteswar's bestowal of the Paramhansa honorific to
> Yoganandaji was not witnessed by anyone else. Provide proof that C.
> Richard Wright and other persons present in Karar Ashram witnessed
> this! This is just a claim by Yogananda that we accept due to our
> faith and trust in him.
>
> > "It takes a Paramahansa to know a Paramahansa!" You are not such
> > a one so you have no right to claim anything about him.
>
> What Paramahansa? It is Paramhansa. Yogananda never signed his name as
> Paramahansa. Perhaps the person who appears to you when you're high is
> Paramahansa. I am not denying that Yogananda was a Paramhansa. Why
> would I even address him as such if I don't accept it? I would just
> call him Bro. Mukunda or Mr. Ghosh if I don't accept it. I am only
> replying your moronic contention that "great masters do not go about
> proclaiming themselves as Sat-Gurus."
>
> If you truly believe that it takes a Paramhansa to know a Paramhansa
> then it means that you are making a big mistake. If only a Paramhansa
> can know a Paramhansa then how did you know that only a Paramhansa can
> know a Paramhansa? Are you a Paramhansa? No. What are you? A drug
> addict who believes in ridiculous things, a junkie, a filth of
> society. By your own claims you disqualify yourself. You also
> disqualify Sri Yukteswar, he was not a Paramhansa.
>
> >
> >
> > > Sez who? Sez you? Nya ha ha ha ha ha ha har har har har!!! If that is
> > > the qualification then even Yogananda was not a Sat-Guru. He was
> > > unable to foresee that his hermitage will slide into the sea and
> > > crumble. That Dhirananda will leave him. That his organization will
> > > later forge his own signature and alter his teachings. And many other
> > > things which he failed to predict.
> >
> >
> > If you knew anything about the life of a great master, you would
> > realize that his life is characterized by both a human consciousness
> > and the limitations of that state as well as a divine consciousness
> > and the limitless capacities of that state.
>
> This is what your cult brainwashed you to think. A person with a
> limited human consciousness and limitless divine consciousness? What
> sort of mumbo-jumbo statement is that? Meaningless word jugglery. It's
> either you function from a limited human consciousness or you have
> already transcended that and now functions with a limitless divine
> consciousness. Saying that he functions from both is like saying that
> something is both wet and dry, it's contradictory. You are really very
> stupid to fall for that kind of (mis)explanation.
>
> > This is the way that God
> > plays through a human being who has attained to the state of a master.
>
> According to you only a master can know a master. Are you a master?
> No. What are you? A drug addict who believes in ridiculous things, a
> junkie, a filth of society. See? How can a shit like you explain "the
> way that God plays through a human being who has attained to the state
> of a master"? You are so full of yourself. Imagine claiming to know
> "the way that God plays through a human being who has attained to the
> state of a master." See how you contradict yourself?
>
> For your education, Andre the drug addict from Perth, Australia, the
> state of a master is not "attained" but realized. You cannot "attain"
> that which already is.
>
> > Can you, in your puniness,
>
> Puniness? Nya ha ha ha ha ha har har har!!! What sort of "puniness" is
> it that your brain is bleeding to come up with even the most nonsense
> replies and your ego is aching like a mad dog who has been shot in the
> heart? You are an amateur, boy. My "puniness" is just too big for you.
>
> > claim to posses even one iota of the
> > spiritual power and realization that was the hallmark of my great
> > Gurudev?
>
> Who? Ned W. Waller? What's so great about him? He was able to dupe
> those Indian kriyabans who hold the copyright to crappy old books into
> letting him publish them in the Net while he takes all the credit as
> "ordained priest of Kriya Yoga"?
> http://www.csudh.edu/philosophy/classes/pages/banner_ad.htm and
> http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:OSxevt4vvKMJ:www.csudh.edu/philosophy/waller/downloadables/CCH_final.doc+%22ned+waller%22+kriya&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> Or are you still referring to PARAMHANSA Yogananda? Someone whom you
> never met, never knew and never knew you.
>
> >
> >
> > > Yogananda, though generally a fountain of wisdom,
> > > also had dogmatic sometimes stupid things to say.
> >
> >
> > You are unqualified to say such a thing.
>
> Sez who? Sez you? Nya ha ha ha ha ha har har har!!!
>
> > It is you who are dogmatic
> > and stupid and this is so blatantly obvious to anyone who happens to
> > read a single paragraph of your trash.
>
> Trash? Then why are you relishing and so desperately attempting to
> post a rebuttal against trash? Are you some sort of a scavenger then?
>
> > A man is known by the company
> > he keeps, and you are easily known by the deluded, self-obsessed
> > nitwits you managed to con into your little game of playing pretend
> > guru.
>
> Ah, dopehead, did you just bilocate by the aid of a magical joint to
> ascertain the company I keep? All my disciples are university students
> and professionals not uneducated drop-out drug addicts like yourself.
> The company I keep are of diverse nature but mostly MDs, Physical
> Therapists and Nurses because of the nature of my job. Some are
> Martial Artists, Yoga Teachers and clergymen. My father has a Bachelor
> of Arts in Political Science degree from the University of Manila. My
> mother is a Bachelor of Science in Fine Arts major in Advertising
> graduate from the University of the Philippines with an M.A. and Ph.D.
> units. Our family is a family of professionals, Judges, lawyers, MDs,
> Military Officers, Physical Therapists, Certified Public Accountants,
> etc. What do you have to say now? How about you, what kind of company
> do you keep? Junkies, dopeheads, egoistic, judgemental, fanatic
> bastards like yourself of course.
>
> >
> >
> > > The only thing that is utterly shameful is the sectarian and
> > > judgemental opinion of a self-confessed drug addict who is in truth
> > > absolutely clueless about what he's blabbing about. Desperate to score
> > > that imaginary "point" against an agent of truth (truth is invincible)
> > > you continue to search for bullets in the candy store.
> >
> >
> > You are right in one respect _______,
>
> I am right in all respects, and that is Sat-Guru Brahman-Atmananda for
> you, stray dog.
>
> > truth IS invincible! It speaks
> > for itself, and what it speaks in your case is clear to anyone who
> > takes the time to discover what you are really about.
>
> Yes, I speak only the truth. Everything I say is true and correct and
> no one in the world can ever refute even a single point that I make
> not because I am superior (I am not superior, I am just an ordinary
> person) but because I am honest and speaks only the truth even if it
> hurts or even if it puts me in a bad light.
>
> > I hope to God
> > you truly are providing charitable service for the poor and
> > disadvantaged; it is the only thing in your favor.
>
> I don't care about favor. Some things are in my favor and some are not
> but I don't care. You have lost the argument. Krishna is a Hindu
> mythological character and not a historical personality as you
> proclaimed and were made to believe. You failed to provide even an
> iota of evidence to support your hallucinated historical existence of
> Krishna. The burden of proof lies on the person that says something
> exist or something happened, not the other way around. You have been
> defeated.
Swami Dâ Prem
seeker wrote:
> Look fool,
>
>
> Ive had enough of your baseless rants.
Someone is very upset now!
seeker
spews out of you kido; at least others can see it too. Yeah I did say
Im gonna go lie in the sun and thats what Im gonna do. So have fun
Daryl my boy, and I hope your charity thing goes on well; those kids
need a helping hand! Just hope youre not making money off them.
See ya, wouldnt wanna be ya!
drd...@yahoo.com (Brother Brahman-Atmananda) wrote in message news:<12053fad.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> maha...@yahoo.com.au (seeker) wrote in message news:<b6f341b5.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Look fool,
>
> Do you mean to say "look at the fool (i.e. Andre)"? How can I take a
> look at you when you keep on hiding behind your Mommy's putee in
> Perth, Australia?
>
> > Ive had enough of your baseless rants.
>
> Hey, that's my line. The only person engaged in baseless rants here is
> you. And haven't you "had enough" a couple of posts ago when you
> publicly declared that you're going to leave everything to the readers
> while you "lie in the sun"? What happened to that grandstanding plan?
> Nya ha ha ha ha ha har har har!!! Truth is you can't do that. Each and
> every word that I say bores an irreparable hole in your system.
>
> > You call me drug addict when I
> > dont even take drugs.
>
> Of course you do, and it shows. You are a hopeless addict, filth of
> society, lower than worm on stool. But with that kind of comparison
> I'm being unbelievably nice. Why? Read on.
>
> > I used to smoke a bit when I was younger, now I
> > do not, so how am I a drug addict?
>
> That's what you're saying here. But on http://www.yogananda.net you
> confessed your HEAVY use of Cannabis for eight straight years. That is
> enough to get your brain so heavily fucked up:
>
> "I started smoking marijuana when I was 14 and smoked heavily on and
> off until about a year and a half ago. I am now 23." - Andre
>
> Again, that's what you're saying. But who would believe a person who
> has been an addict since the age of 14? Specially someone who is so
> public about his fantasies. Fantasies that include "meetings" with a
> deceased Guru whom he never met, never knew and never knew him and the
> supposed historicity of a blue-skinned, androgynous and at times
> milti-limbed Hindu mythological character.
>
> Tsk tsk tsk. Poor boy. What kind of parents do you have? Animals.
> Imagine letting you become an addict at 14. Those animals you call Mom
> and Dad should be jailed for irresponsible behaviour.
>
> > You must be the one who takes
> > drugs; you and your bum-chum Da Prem (who actually looks like a
> > junkie)!
>
> ;-)) No, thank you. Use of recreational drugs is strictly prohibited
> even to the general membership of our Congregation. We don't share
> your fascination with and endorsement of such things, as you yourself
> said:
>
> "Marijuana can release built up spiritual perception in a
> mental/emotional way much like having sex can release built up
> spiritual energy in a physical way. During my battle to overcome my
> habit of smoking I went through periods of adhering to practicing
> sadhana and later giving in to taking the drug again. What I found was
> that often times taking it again after that period of discipline didnt
> necessarily make me feel worse; on the contrary it often heightened my
> feeling of spirituality in the sense of amplifying my emotional
> state." - Andre
>
> See the reason why we don't believe that you've really gotten over
> your addiction? You gave yourself away by describing how you kept on
> coming back at it.
>
> >
> > Whatever you have to say about my Guru doesnt mean shit.
>
> Of course it does. It means all the world to you. That's the reason
> why you can't keep it at that.
>
> > I know what I
> > know and what I have experienced.
>
> Which is ... tadaaa! NOTHING!
>
> > You cannot possibly know these
> > things, you are reaching for straws.
>
> Hey, Andre the drug addict, you are ranting like the desperate looser
> that you are again. "Cannot possibly know these things." "Reaching for
> straws." Pathetic.
>
> > A true Guru is omnipresent and
> > can come to his disciples drawn by the irresistable magnet of their
> > love.
>
> Nya ha ha ha ha ha har har har!!! Still spewing standard SRF hogwash
> eh? Sri Yoganandaji, with all due respect to him, was never
> omnipresent. He failed to foresee so many things. His seaside
> hermitage slid to the sea and crumbled. He failed to predict a
> permanent falling out with Brahmachari Nerode and Swami Dhirananda.
> The latter even sued him and won. Just weeks before his passing he was
> enthusiastically speaking about a return trip to India. Meaning he was
> absolutely clueless of his impending death. Have you seen his
> writings? So many erasures and superimpositions. Someone who is
> omnipresent would have it right the first time. He failed to see that
> the organization that he established will end up betraying him
> http://www.yogananda-dif.org/betrayal.htm And many other things. If
> that is omnipresence, then everybody is omnipresent.
>
> > Your silly denial of these truths is founded in your inability
> > to experience the same because of your bad attitude and vanity.
>
> There is no silly denial. The silliness on this place are only coming
> from one isolated source, you. You are claiming so many things but is
> totally unable to provide any proof save the usual salivary douche.
>
> >
> > I havent lost this argument at all.
>
> Of course you have. You are just too weak to accept it; afraid to let
> go of your imaginary hashish-inspired world. Your argument was that
> Krishna--the blue-skinned, androgynous, at times multi-limbed Hindu
> mythological character--*really* existed simply because Yogananda said
> so. I said I beg to differ because only a totally ignorant crackpot
> like yourself would believe that someone who purportedly took previous
> incarnations as a fish god, tortoise god, boar god, half-man/half-lion
> god, dwarf god, etc. and was able to swallow an entire river, lift an
> entire hill by his bare hands and married 16,000 women could really
> have existed. You are saying that Krishna exist, I am saying he
> doesn't based on plain and sound commonsense. Where is your evidence?
> The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that something
> happened, that something does exist, not the other way around. You
> were unable to provide even a single piece of evidence to back your
> stupid fantasy up. You're in the sewer, stray dog. Be man enough to
> face your fate.
>
> > Ive already shown how you, in your
> > total ignorance, are promoting the very book in which my Guru tells
> > people otherwise about Krishna than what your mere opinion is.
>
> I have already reputed this garbage. Here it is again for the THIRD
> time:
>
> <quote>
> > > The book does not contradict my opinion about Krishna. It brings out
> > > the inner meaning of the myth that supports my very point: "It is not
> > > to be taken literally. Its practical value lies on its esoteric
> > > meaning." Regarding Yoganandaji's hype that Babaji was Krishna and he
> > > was Arjuna (in the same way that he mentioned in another publication
> > > the Three Wise Men to be Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya and Sri Yukteswar and,
> > > on another occasion, that Sri Yukteswar was St. Francis of Assisi
> > > in a previous life) we simply ignore it. You don't need to accept
> > > every single sentence as factual in order to appreciate the
> > > self-transformative worth of a spiritual book; you weigh the content.
> > > In God Talks with Arjuna the 90% truth outweighs the 10% hype and
> > > opinion of an obvious (no matter how he tried to cover it) Hindu
> > > fanatic.
> </quote>
>
> See? What you're doing is very dishonest. You present arguments that
> have already been addressed as if they are being pointed out for the
> first time. Is that what your real guru Ned W. Waller taught you?
>
> > It is
> > clear you are so far gone you will not face facts and truth any
> > longer.
>
> You are confusing my case with yours, Andre the drug addict. You are
> the person who refuses to accept facts (due to some sort of a sickness
> perhaps). You mistake mythology for reality and the sectarian opinion
> of a Hindu guru for truth. You are one hell of a basket case.
>
> >
> > No I dont mean "hearts", although that would be valid also.
>
> Of course it is valid. Unlike you, I never say anything that is
> invalid.
>
> > People, no
> > matter how many of them I am referring to, all have only one heart,
> > not many.
>
> Tarantado!
>
> > Therefore it is equally valid to state it that way. Go ask
> > an English teacher.
>
> I just did. He said you're an absolute moron.
>
> >
> > This pointless bickering with you is a lost cause and I dont care for
> > it any longer, but at least people have had an opportunity to weigh up
> > your argument and mine and realize you are being thrashed concretely.
>
> Merely stating something does not necessarily make it so. This is the
> only thing that you can do, make claims. You've already made many
> claims: Krishna is a historical personality, You are a disciple of
> Yogananda (someone whom you never met, never knew and never knew you),
> that you actually interacted with Yogananda (while in a pot session, I
> presume), Yogananda is omnipresent, there are many witnesses when Sri
> Yukteswar conferred the Paramhansa honorific to him, etc. But no meat,
> no evidence, not even sound reasoning. People will generally find it a
> lot more pleasurable to shit than to read your desperate ranting.
>
> > No matter what you say the evidence of your ignorance is present and
> > will be seen by all.
>
> Little toy, if it is true that I am ignorant then why are you so
> desperate? If something is self-evident then why do you feel a deep
> itch to publicly point it out? Could it be that the "ignorance" you're
> blabbing about exists only in your drug-polluted imagination?
>
> >
> > So, kiss my ass _____ _______! You and your moronic bunch of
> > proselyters can drown in ignorance for all I care.
>
> If a moron proselyter is able to defeat you as easy as blinking his
> eyelids, what does that make you then? All you have is hype. Sorry
> asswipe, you just ingested too much drugs and wasted too much time on
> destroying yourself. The finished product is here with us now, and
> it's a sad, sad case.
>
> > I do not wish it on
> > you but you brought it on yourselves.
>
> Ooohhh, Andre the drug addict is pissed because he lost the argument.
> Poor doggy. Is it lonely down there in the sewer, doggy?