Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Forum Svet pogovorov gape.org
Sončeve pozitivke
pilcom.si
 
  HomeHelpSearchMembersLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
(Read 58329 times)
mind
5
*****
Offline

Always remember Krishna
and never forget Him
!
Posts: 686
MB
Gender: male
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #120 - 06.01.2003 at 21:57:44
 
ARS wrote on 06.01.2003 at 21:25:31:
Pa se ti zdi, da sploh kdo lahko pojasni večnost in/ali dokaže njen obsoj?
(In jaz bi tukajle zanemarila razlago pomena v SSKJ oz. nekako privzeto splošno
pojmovanje besede/termina v smislu "nepredstavljive" neskončnosti in posledično metaforičnost ...)

Kaj pa, če je sploh ni? Večnost česa je?   ???


ARS, zgrešila si smisel mojega odgovora, ki se je nanašal na Bardovo razlago evolucije. In ta je bila, da se vse spreminja in da gre za razvoj. In da vse temelji na razvoju. Napisal je tako:
Quote:
Zadostuje že, če se zamisliš nad svojim lastnim telesom, ki je nastalo iz ene same oplojene celice in se nato postopoma razvijalo do današnjega stanja in katerega razvoj (evolucija) še vedno poteka, pa postane več kot očitno, kako zelo smo v ta razvoj vpeti.
Celo stremljenje duš po večji zavseti ter razsvetljenju je del tega vsesplošnega razvoja - evolucije?


In če govorimo o razvoju to pomeni, da govorimo o nečem kar kar se je razvilo iz nečesa drugega. In to v evolucijski teoriji posplošeno pomeni, da se je človek razvil  iz ene same celice. In sama beseda "razvoj" tako kot "evolucija" vsebujeta začetek in konec. Najprej je torej bilo nekaj, potem nekaj drugega in konec je pač takšen kakršenega trenutno gledamo. In sprašuješ me, kako lahko pojasnim večnost ? Ne morem je, tako kot evolucijska teorija ne more niti približno zanesljivo dokazat, da takšna teorija drži. Še manj pa zna dokazat obstoj "začetka" ki je nujen pri razvoju. (kaj pa je bilo pred začetkom? ) Pomoje nam prav naša nezmožnost dojetja časa kaže, v kakšni zablodi morda živimo. En in edini odgovor je možen na vprašanje "kaj je bilo pred začetkom ?" in sicer, da se ta začetek lahko  pomika v neskončnost in kaj je večnost drugega kot neskončnost. ? Zakaj števila niso končna tako kot prostor ne ? Jaz edini odgovor vidim v neskončnosti oz. če to prenesem na pojem časa večnost. In point je, zakaj bi torej slepo verjel v evolucijsko teorijo ? Ne rečem, da jo 100% zavračam ampak samo dopuščam, da ne drži.




LP
 



Back to top
 

Hari bol
 
IP Logged
 
gape
YaBB Administrator
p
*****
Offline

I love YaBB!
Posts: 13595
The Land of YaBB
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #121 - 06.01.2003 at 23:15:45
 
najprej hočem biti ljubljen
potem (na četrtem nivoju) (do)žvim ljubezen
in potem samo še ljubim

kot ponavadi je hec v tem da se gleda na isto medaljo z dveh strani, v tem primeru 'od spodaj' ali 'od zgoraj' ... od uznotri al pa od uzuni ... iz materije ali iz duha ... dual(nost) != enost

*a je mozno najdt neki kar bi blo Absolutno visjega in v centru interesa nas vseh?*
ljubezen mogoče ???
no ... vidim da mind tud tako misli

*Moje mnenje pa je, da absoluta sploh ni, oziroma, da ne more obstajati, ker je v samem sebi protisloven. Saj že otroci poznajo tisto, da bog ne more biti vsemogočen (torej absolut), ker ne more narediti take skale, ki je ne bi mogel dvigniti niti on. *
men se pa nekako zdi da BOG nekako ne pozna negacije ... negacija je mogoča šele v sistemu dualnosti ... v mayi

xe xe xe
zmotni ego

ja se mi zdi da se bomo zlo težko pomenl o tem kdo smo, če bomo skoz hotl to isto povedat z jezikom ki velja v materiji (negacija -> dualnost). s tem jezikom bomo to zelo težko opisal ... imho ... glih zato razvijamo novorek, pri katerem je aryan - tisti ki sledi vedam - zadost dobro podkovan ... mogoče celo malo preveč in zato ne vidi resnice drugih, resničnosti kateri ne morejo ubežati, saj niti nočejo ... mogoče imajo željo, nimajo pa namere ...


katero čutilo 'čuti' boga aryan?

Quote:
a. : kako pa prides do tega stanja in kako ga vzdrzujes?

to je bolj pot do stanja ...

*Pomembno se mi zdi, da ko se sprašujemo Kdo smo skušamo ugotoviti kaj nam je skupnega.*
to ...


tao ... imho ... nisi ti ... tao - dao je u aryanovem besednjaku absolut ali v mojem BOG ... osnovna substanca ... kar jih mi dojemamo tukaj in zdaj spljoh

delamo se pametne zato da bi nekdo nekaje reku ... mater veš da res, veš da jest tud tko mislm ... in v osnovi je tuki na forumu tko ... če ti noben ne pika nazaj al se strinja, al dopušča možnost da je tudi tako ... al se mu pa ne sanja o čem govoriš.
in zadnji bodo prvi.
no in ko ti noben ne pika nazaj, veš da se že mal manj motiš.

*Kdor sam hoče, tega usoda vodi, kdor ne, tega potegne s seboj.*
evo kako seneka lepo pove



titud wrote on 06.01.2003 at 13:25:15:
Evo, sem natresu en kup tez, kdo bi lahko človek  bil, ki so stare od 1500 do 3000 let in  ki jih še vedno bolj ali manj nevede   verbalno recikliramo, a redkokdaj zares dojemamo...    

nekako, titud, je hec v tem da da bi aryan rad povedu da mi nismo ljudje ... kaj pa smo pol?
se reče
ne kaj bi lahko človek bil
ampak če jest nism samo človek, ampak mnjogo več ... kaj potem sem.

vem recimo da nisem ego.
kaj pol sm?

duša
ok
kaj to je?
kako sm lahko neki kar sploh ne vem kaj je ... nekateri niti ne vedo za njen obstoj ...
in zadnji bodo prvi.


Zelos ... ti kr mal pobrski po starih temah, al pa kr aryana praš ... če pa bolj malo veš ... pa kr mal poišči po forumu ... search ... in to ... smo že precej tega stipkal sm gor ... ni vse Resnica, je pa vse definitivno del Resnice.
kajti nič ni izven absoluta kot bi vedu povedat aryan


*osvoboditev ne pomeni izniciti svojega ega (nirvan), niti ne pomeni se zliti v celoto (brahma-nirvan), ampak pomeni ugotovitev svojega pravega ega, glede na celoto.  
takrat kadar si nic ali kadar si vse, takrat ne more bit nbene ljubezni, ki po definiciji zahteva dva. *
a bi lahko reku da se ti ta ugotovitev zgodi na četrtem nivoju?



no pa sm vas dohitu ...

a kdo že ve kdo smo?




no še kos današnje meditacije ... mogoče se pa kdo najde notr


20:32:28 [Kali] Sprejeli smo ta izziv, da pomagamo in služimo svojemu bližnjemu…

20:32:45 [Kali] Pred njim stojimo v veliki sobani, razsvetljeni od bistva naših življenj…

20:33:05 [Kali] Iskrice naše svetlobe se odbijajo od kristalnih zidov sobane, širijo svetlobo znotraj prostora…je intenzivno lesketajoča, vendar ne premočna…

20:33:19 [Kali] Občutimo ljubezen drug do drugega in ljubezen naših varuhov in vodnikov…to je topel, varen občutek…

20:33:42 [Kali] Zopet smo opozorjeni na naš namen in na odločitve, ki jih delamo…vemo, da se ta krog ne bo prekinil; nadaljeval se bo še mnogo časa, skozi mnogo življenj…

20:33:53 [Kali] Spomnimo se naše povezave enega z drugim; da smo Eno samo z “vsem kar je” in vsemi, ki so iz iste “družine duš”…

20:34:12 [Kali] Spomnimo se našega časa tu…spomnimo se našega sveta takega kot je bil; fizičnega, ki je sedaj v višji vibraciji kot mesta kamor gremo…

20:34:24 [Kali] Spomnimo se te zlate aure, našega doma in žareče topline ljubezni…

20:34:38 [Kali] Spomnimo se popolnosti našega obstoja…popolni, brez napak, še nedotaknjeni in neprestrašeni z doživetji…

20:34:56 [Kali] Spomnimo se našega prvega obiska sveta, ki mu rečemo Zemlja…To je bilo dolgo nazaj, v linearnem času…

20:35:27 [Kali] Spomnimo se stavbe mogočne civilizacije in vloge, ki smo jo igrali…

20:35:38 [Kali] Spomnimo se kako smo si kot bitja svetlobe in višje vibracije zmanjševali to vibracijo, da smo postali fizični…

20:35:57 [Kali] Ko smo kot fizična bitja pomagali drugim in jim dajali nasvete; učili in zdravili, živeli kot oni, življenje za življenjem, cikel za ciklom…

20:36:21 [Kali] Učili smo se in si delili, rastli in pomagai drugim, da zrastejo duhovno neodvisni; zato, da lahko tudi oni pomagajo drugim…

20:36:47 [Kali] Dobe so prihajale in odhajale; civilizacije so se dvigale in padale, in mi smo pomagali – z dajanjem podpore, ko je bilo potrebno, učenjem in ohranjanjem spominov na te čase…

20:37:03 [Kali] Spomnimo se tudi tega, da je bil vsakdo od nas na svoji duhovni poti, in ni bilo pravih ali napačnih poti; in da se še naprej učimo…

20:37:17 [Kali] Spominjamo se časov med fizičnimi življenji, ko smo odvrgli fizična oblačila in nadaljevali z učenjem…

20:37:39 [Kali] In spet smo izbrali obdobja, ko smo bili fizični, da bi pomagali, ko je bilo potrebno…

20:37:48 [Kali] Te spomine imamo, oboje, skupaj in narazen ene od drugih… da si pomagamo med seboj, v časih, ko izgubimo smisel…

20:37:59 [Kali] Ti spomini se vračajo, nas preplavljajo, medtem ko stojimo tam in sprejemamo svetlobo…

20:38:17 [Kali] Razdajali se bomo za izboljšanje človeštva…

20:38:34 [Kali] Čutimo bolečino Zemlje, medtem ko kot njeni otroci rastemo skozi njene lekcije, nekatere lekcije so hitrejše od drugih…

20:38:58 [Kali] Zopet čutimo potrebo po tem, da pomagamo…posijati naši notranji svetlobi, da pomaga razsvetliti poti ostalih…

20:39:09 [Kali] To je naše doživetje učenja in tako rastemo s tem, ko pomagamo drugim, da rastejo…

20:39:23 [Kali] In na tak način se vržemo proti temu vedno se spreminjajočem svetu, da se rodimo med njegovimi ljudmi…

20:39:35 [Kali] Potovali smo proti toku reke časa, do našega prvotnega mesta…

20:40:01 [Kali] Hvala, ker ste delili to potovanje z menoj…

20:40:08 [Kali] Mi smo Ljubezen, Mi smo Svetloba, Mi smo ENO…

20:40:28 [Kali] Svetle blagoslove……
Back to top
 

Lahko pa da se tudi motim ...

The Administrator of this yabb and domain.
WWW WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bardo_Thodol
5
*****
Offline


Posts: 2812

Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #122 - 07.01.2003 at 00:27:27
 
mind wrote on 06.01.2003 at 21:57:44:
Najprej je torej bilo nekaj, potem nekaj drugega in konec je pač takšen kakršenega trenutno gledamo. In sprašuješ me, kako lahko pojasnim večnost ? Ne morem je, tako kot evolucijska teorija ne more niti približno zanesljivo dokazat, da takšna teorija drži. Še manj pa zna dokazat obstoj "začetka" ki je nujen pri razvoju. (kaj pa je bilo pred začetkom? ) Pomoje nam prav naša nezmožnost dojetja časa kaže, v kakšni zablodi morda živimo. En in edini odgovor je možen na vprašanje "kaj je bilo pred začetkom ?" in sicer, da se ta začetek lahko  pomika v neskončnost in kaj je večnost drugega kot neskončnost. ? Zakaj števila niso končna tako kot prostor ne ? Jaz edini odgovor vidim v neskončnosti oz. če to prenesem na pojem časa večnost. In point je, zakaj bi torej slepo verjel v evolucijsko teorijo ? Ne rečem, da jo 100% zavračam ampak samo dopuščam, da ne drži.

Teorija evolucije seveda ne more pojasniti začetka ali konca časa, saj to tudi ni bil ne njen namen ne ambicija. Njen namen je bil razložiti in razumeti, kako se lahko biološke vrste pod različnimi vplivi okolja spreminjajo v druge vrste, skratka, kako lahko nastajajo nove (živalske) vrste, od katerih je ena tudi naša, človeška vrsta.

O začetku in koncu časa zna več pojasniti fizika, saj nenazadnje je čas fizikalni pojem.

Mnogi filozofi, čeprav ne vsi, so dolgo predpostavljali, da je čas tako v preteklost, kot v prihodnost neskončen, a se je v prejšnjem stoletju izkazalo, da temu ni nujno tako. Najprej se spomnimo, da čas ni nekakšna absolutna ter od vsega drugega neodvisna filozofska kategorija. Kot fizikalno količino, se ga da natančno meriti, ima pa še eno, na prvi pogled manj očitno lastnost, namreč, da lahko obstaja le v tesni povezavi s prostorom, torej v vesolju. Zaradi tega se v novejših teorijah omenja prostor-čas, kot nekaj nerazdružljivega. Brez vesolja tudi časa ni. V kakšni odvisnosti je čas naprimer od hitrosti in od količine snovi obstajajo zelo natančne in v praksi preverjene relativistične formule. V bližini masivnih objektov teče čas počasneje. Znotraj tako masivnih objektov, da jim ne more ubežati niti svetloba (črne luknje), se čas celo ustavi, kar pomeni, da tam časa ni.

Da ne bi zašel v prevelike podrobnosti, naj omenim le še to, da so pri iskanju rešitev kozmoloških enačb že pred približno tridesetimi leti našli rešitve, ki poenostavljeno povedano pravijo, da ima lahko tudi čas svoj začetek in konec. Podrobnosti si lahko vsak poišče sam v številni literaturi, posebej zanimiva in od mene priporočljiva pa je pred kratkim v slovenščino prevedena knjiga S.Hawkinga: "Vesolje v orehovi lupini", kjer priznani znanstvenik na poljuden in lahko razumljiv način, ter z veliko tudi zabavnih ilustracij med drugim razlaga tudi teorije o začetku in koncu časa.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
titud
5
p
*****
Offline

Zaznavanje mističnega
je vir vsake prave znanosti.

Posts: 6736
Markomur
Gender: male
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #123 - 07.01.2003 at 08:19:20
 
Quote:
nekako, titud, je hec v tem da da bi aryan rad povedu da mi nismo ljudje ... kaj pa smo pol?
se reče  
ne kaj bi lahko človek bil
ampak če jest nism samo človek, ampak mnjogo več ... kaj potem sem.


Pr vprašanju kdo smo gre za poskus, da bi se logoično utemeljil. Ampak kako se logično utemeljit, ko pa smo kozmos v malem, ki ga poganja prav ta logos? Ok., spravmo se  logično utemljevat najprej kozmos, da se bomo pol v njem empirično razpoznal. Ampak pri spoznavanju kozmosa smo spet omejen v lastni logiki: to, kar se ne  da misliti, je znotraj omejeno  s tem, kar se da misliti.

Zunaj teh meja se razprostira mistično: jaz, bog, smisel sveta itd.  Ker nam  pravi logika, da je rešitev življenjskih problemov vidna v tem, da ti problemi izginejo, potem je jasno, da se z logiko jaza, boga in smisla sveta še lotili nismo. Čeprav smo odgovorili na vsa možna znanstvena vpršanja, se se naših bistvenih vprašanj še dotaknili nismo. O čemer ni mogoče govoriti, o tem moramo molčati in zato ostaja razreševenaje bistvenih življenjskih vprašanj v polju mistike.  

Tko nekako je na začetku 20. stoletja dunajski  filozof ludvig wittgenstein  razmišljal v svojem traktatu. Zato ni se ni za čudit, da imajo aryanove vede popolnoma vse kompetence, da tud v začetku 21. stoletja  razrešujejo vsa bistvena življenjska vprašanja (tud tega kdo sem jaz) boljš kot še taka na logiki uteljena znanost. V polju mističnega pač empirično učinkovito  potrjujejo logično ugotovitev, da 'je rešitev življenjskih problemov vidna v tem, da ti problemi izginejo':

- če mamo probleme z zanavanjem materialnosti, zakaj bi jo sploh priznaval?

- če mam problem s sabo kot človekom, zakaj  ne bi bil eno z bogom ?

???  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aryan
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #124 - 07.01.2003 at 11:51:54
 
zdej smo ze tok delec prsli, da smo ugotovil da nam cutila ne morjo dat dokoncnega in zadovoljivga "videnja". nekateri se pol obrnejo na razum. nekateri pa se spustijo v meditacijo. meditacij pa je seveda vec vrst, glede na koncept itd itd. ker veste da je moj nick aryan ki pomeni da sledi Vede, vam bom spodi dal en odlomk iz ene knjige, v kateri je razlozen tocn okol tega. Vede so v bistvu "zapiski" Vyasadeva, ki so nastali po njegovih razlicnih meditacijah in njihovih razlicnih zmoznostih penetracije v trancendenco. upam da vam bo pomagal, tud jaz mam ze par izkusenj iz tega podrocja. upam da bosta vsaj titud in mind in pa tud gape in bardo_thodol pozorno prebrala, da bomo lahko skupi pol razlabljal. znotri vam bom pomagu se v oklepajih pomen ksnih besed da bo lazje. ne mi zamert prosim. sanskrit izraze bom dal v italic.

In the pramana-khanda division of Tattva-sandarba (to je ta knjiga), Jiva Goswami (avtor, in hkrati eden izmed najozjih ucencev Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu-ja) establishes his pramana (dokazilo, evidence) that which will serve as final and conclusive proof of his statements.

Throughout the Sat-sandarbha (vecja knjiga, 6 razprav o Absolutni resnici, med katerimi je tattva sandarbha ena izmed njih, ta iz katere odlomek je tuki), Sri Jiva puts forward many postulates (visaya) and many doubts (samsaya) that arise as to the validity of those postulates. He will also strengthen those doubts by arguing strongly (purvapaksa) against his own postulate. He then gives the proper conclusion validating his original postulate (siddhanta) and demonstrating as well that his conclusion has been arrived at in due consideration of context (sangati). In doing so, he cites his established pramana (dokazilo).

This section of Tattva-sandarba is vital to the entire Sat- sandarba, for without understanding it, one will not be able to appreciate the conclusive knowledge (prameya) which follows. Sri Jiva states, "To establish that which has just been mentioned....the standard of valid knowledge will be judiciously decided."

People who have misidentified themselves with the material body are subject to four defects: confusion (bhrama), inattention (pramada), deception (vipralipsa), and imperfect senses (karanapatava). As a result of this, Jiva Goswami concludes that their experience in and of itself is not acceptable as valid and conclusive knowledge. (to je vazn razumet)

That humanity is crippled by these defects should be apparent. Bhrama, or confusion, begins with the jiva soul's misidentification with the material body. We want to make our bodies perfectly healthy, beautiful, and so on, only because these are qualities of the soul, which is now identifying erroneously with the body. Because the soul is a unit of perfection, it wants to make the body as perfect, while unaware the the body is different from the self. One might question just what kind of perfection the soul has when it is capable of being deluded into misidentifying with the material body. This query is answered in the prameya section of Tattva-Sandarbha. At this point, Jiva Goswami merely wants to shed light on the imperfections of the materially conditioned state of consciousness, a state of confusion. Not only do we confuse ourselves with our bodies, we also sometimes mistake one material object object for another, as in the classic example in which one misidentifies a rope to be a snake. Thus bhrama, or the tendency to be illusioned, extends from our illusion about our own self to illusion about other material objects as well.

Pramada, or inattentiveness, occurs when the mind and senses are focused on the same sense object at the same time. For example, if our eyes are focused on a form but our mind is not, we do not experience everything that could about that form. This inattentiveness results in our making mistakes. Because we are not attentive in school, we make mistakes when tested. This attentiveness, or the tendency to make mistakes, is a natural condition of our material life. Vipralipsa, or cheating, occurs to the extent that we are in material consciousness, for material consciousness amounts to not acknowledging the proprietorship of God. Karanapatava, or imperfect senses, means that every sense is limited. With our eyes we cannot hear. With our ears we cannot see. Describing these limitations of the senses implies that there are senses that are not defective. This is so in the case of Krishna's senses, which are said to be interchangeable. Senses are also defective in terms of the particular function they are designed to perform. Eyes are designed for seeing, yet even when functioning in this capacity they often give us imperfect information. Sometimes their capacity is impaired by circumstances, such as the amount of light provided or the distance of the object from the viewer. Even under ideal circumstances, however, they can provide imperfect information. The senses also fail us when we attempt on their strength to understand spiritual subject matter, which lies beyond their jurisdiction. Thus one crippled by the senses cannot provide valid testimony as to the nature of truth. Therefore Jiva Goswami summarily rejects those who are handicapped by these defects and labels them as unreliable (nezanesljivi viri info). He finds reason, thereby, to conclude that sense perception (pratyaksa), the most common means of knowing, is not capable in and of itself to serve as valid and conclusive evidence. (to je taprvi nezanesljiv)

While animals are equipped with senses and little if any reason, humans are said to be rational animals. Dogs howl and jump up at the moon, assuming it is within reach. Lacking sufficient reasoning, they cannot under-stand that although the full moon appears within reach it is actually far, far away. The sun appears to our eyes as a glowing mass about the size of a basketball. With the help of reasoning, however, we can understand that the sun is larger than the earth on which we are standing, yet millions of miles away. The power of reasoning is great, greater than the power of the senses. Brain is more powerful than brawn (moc misicevja), and mind mightier than matter. Logic comes to our aid where the senses fail us.

In the Vedic tradition, logic (nyaya) is five-sided as opposed to three-sided logic most common in Western culture. In Western logic, an argument is supported by a major and minor premise (nacelo). The major premise contains the major term that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the minor term that is the subject of the conclusion. Common to both premises is the middle term that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical example is: "Every virtue is laudable, kindness is a virtue; therefore, kindness is laudable." The Vedic tradition's five-sided logic begins with a statement followed by a reason. This is followed by a major premise in the form of a rule, which is followed by an example. Lastly the conclusion is reached. For example, one can state that "behind the mountain there is fire." The reason in support of this is "because there is smoke". The rule is "wherever there is smoke, there is fire". This is followed by an example, from which the conclusion is drawn.

In either case, Western or Eastern, Sri Jiva contends that logic is not capable of delivering conclusive evidence as to the nature of truth. In the example of smoke and fire, universal application is lacking. One's premise may not be true in all instances, and it is virtually impossible to experiment in all circumstances to find out if this is so (tko kot v to upa znanost). Smoke can exist where there is not fire. Should rain put out a fire behind the moun- tain moments before the smoke comes into our view, we would be mistaken to conclude that there is fire behind the mountain merely because we can see the smoke. If we consider universal application imperative (nujna), inference (sklep) is inconclusive. Thus Sri Jiva also rejects anumana (inference) in his search for a perfect pramana. (to je tadrug nezanesljiv vir)

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aryan
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #125 - 07.01.2003 at 11:52:29
 
Altogether Jiva Goswami discusses ten pramanas (dokazil) in his Sarvasam-vadini, a commentary on Tattva-sandarbha. Seven of the pramanas discussed therein, however, are all dependent upon pratyaksa and anumana. In Tattva-sandarbha, Jiva Goswami exposes the shortcomings of relying on either of these two pramanas and thus disqualifies the other seven as well.

After finding the other pramanas imperfect, Jiva Goswami introduces the reader to sabda pramana, or revealed sound (razodet zvok, ki se slisi pri  notranji meditaciji) appearing in the world. Words of those handicapped by the above-mentioned four defects are not reliable, but words that come from a plane free from those defects are most reliable.

Here begins an explanation of the significance of the sabda pramana. It is important to note that Indian theological systems rely heavily upon scripture. Sri Jiva's acceptance of sabda is hardly a lone voice. All six darsana's of Indian theism accept the sabda as a valid means of knowing. Reliance upon sabda is fundamental to Vedanta. Vedanta tells us that without scripture, the written manifestation of sabda known as sastra pramana, Brahman (absolut spirit, truth) can never be realized, sastra-yonitvat. That which can be known by other means is not the subject matter of the sastra (scripture). The subject of the sastra is categorically different from that which can be understood through reasoning and sense perception, as the sastra is categorically different from the senses and the intellect.

Often Hindu spirituality is thought of in the West as a "mystical" tradition, as opposed to the scripturally based "rational" tradition of the West. Nothing could be further from the truth. This misconception is perhaps the greatest distortion of the Hindu tradition found in popular "Eastern mysticism". Just what scripture is, however, is often explained more rationally by Eastern practitioners than by popular Biblical advocates. For the most part, there is also greater emphasis on, and in-depth explanation of, the mystical experience of transcendent life in the Hindu scriptures than the explanation found in the scriptural tradition of the West. Furthermore, the West's Bible is not considered sacred sound in the same way as the sastra is. The Bible, although divinely inspired, has human origins. It is not, therefore, considered sabda.

Sastra is independent of both pratyaksa and anumana. Sastra pramana alone is independent of all others, and it alone is reliable in all circumstances. Other pramanas when viewed as subordinate to sastra also become reliable. Only unaided by sastra are they rejected. If that which we perceive without senses does not contradict the sastra, that perception is valid. Reason directed and illuminated by sastra plays an important role in the systematic inquiry into Brahman (truth).

The important principle here is that those now experiencing imperfection, materially conditioned jivas-souls, require help from the plane of perfection to know perfection. Everyone wants perfect knowledge. The only variable remaining is how one goes about achieving it. According to Sri Jiva, imperfect means of knowing will not produce perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge is just that-perfect. It's perfection necessitates that in the least it is conscious as are we, this being our essential and higher nature. Perfect knowledge is not something inanimate over which we conscious beings can rule (to je zlo vazn). If we approach perfect knowledge with the imperfect idea of subordinating it to ourselves, we will never know perfection (to pa se bolj). Rather such perfect knowledge, being superconscious, is venerable by us. If it so chooses to reveal itself to us, then only can we know it. Sastra represents the plane of perfect knowledge exercising itself in relation to the plane of imperfection, within which we units of relative perfection at present dwell.

Sastra pramana has no human origin. It is apauruseya, not created by any human being. Apauruseya also means that which is eternally existing without beginning. To help us conceive of the eternal nature of the Vedas (the prime example of sastra), they are sometimes described metaphorically as the breath of God. Just as one breathes for the entire duration of one's life, similarly the Vedas are eternally existing along with Godhead. They manifest from time to time, and therefore at times they are unmanifest to human society. In its cruder form, sastra is constituted of codes of working direction for humanity. In its subtle expression, it directly reveals the nature of the self unfettered by material nature. It's sole subject is Brahman, the absolute, about which the sastra speaks both indirectly and directly. The apauruseya nature of the sastra does not preclude it from being written down and disseminated through humanity; rather, it implies that its meaning merely manifests in written form at a certain point in human history. (to je tud vazn vedt)

Sastra is the Veda, whose nature is eternal and from which the world has come. Through Vedic revelation, Brahma, the creator, is said to have created. It is that sound revelation that purifies the senses of those who repeatedly hear it. Only through knowledge derived from sastra can we rise above the limits of our own logic and enter the land of the soul, which is ever superior to intellect, even as intellect is superior to mind, mind superior to senses, and senses superior to gross matter consisting of sense objects.

Inferior means cannot reveal superior ends (zelo pomembno). Mind can understand senses, but senses can never know the mind. Intellect, being inferior to the soul, does not have sufficient power to reveal the soul. Intellect's power is itself derived from consciousness. How then can it shed light upon the soul anymore than a candle can shed light upon the sun? This is the argument that leads us to sastra. Sastra is the infallible pramana because it is handed to us through an unbroken chain of disciplic succession (guru- parampara) consisting of reliable persons.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aryan
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #126 - 07.01.2003 at 11:52:44
 
Sastra is the experience of eternal knowledge heard by realized souls and subsequently voiced by them. It was manifest in the heart of the creator Brahma, spoken by him to form the world, and later compiled and edited by God incarnate, Krishna-dvaipayana-Vyasa, and his disciples. Sastra comes to us as the voice of one who has seen something wonderful and is pressed to tell us about it. Hearing such may indeed afford the greatest impetus for one who has not yet seen reality. Sastra shows the way, upon which following one sees for oneself. It is in-depth speech about that which one can never say enough, iksater nasabdam.

The sastra implores us not to do away with language and logic, but to use them to their fullest potential. Study of the sastra reveals the necessity for adopting transrational means of knowing. The Vedas inspire their reader, theoretically as to the goal and practically as to the means of reaching that goal. In this way, through the medium of pen and paper, reality informs us about itself. Sastra thus directs us beyond its outer representation in words to embrace the spiritual reality its sound corresponds with. In doing so, it taxes the limit of our reasoning power. A doubt may arise as to how a mere book can be held so high. Books are usually a product of human thought and language, inadequate in so many ways. Are not the sastras also the product of human minds? Why should the sastras be considered differently? However divine their origin may be, even if we grant for the sake of argument that they are from God himself, books still have not arrested divinity and held it prisoner in human lang- uage. How can the sastra, while using though and language, be used to prove that which is beyond the reach of both mind and speech?

These are pressing questions. Their answers lie in proper acquaintance with the nature of consciousness. In short, the pure consciousness of the absolute is not restricted as matter is. It is beyond the jurisdiction of matter. It can do what matter cannot. It can take the form of that which is material and remain spiritual at the same time, appearing as the deity, the sastra, and so forth.

The divine word for Sri Jiva is itself Brahman. He advocates the doctrine of varnavada, originally developed in the Mimamsa school. Although Sri Jiva differs significantly from the Mimamsa school as to the import of the sastra, he concurs with them as to the eternal nature of the Veda. How is the sastra eternal? How does it differ from ordinary speech? It differs in two ways. Although its words are the same as those of ordinary speech (Sanskrit), its word order is different. The word order of the sastra is not dependent on the determination of any individual. As the sequence of the Vedic words is eternally fixed, so is the relationship between Vedic words and the objects they seek to describe. There is an innate relationship between the Vedic words and their objects. This relationship is not something determined by convention in human society. Sastra, the written form of the eternal sabda, is the faithful reproduction in a physical medium of that which has always existed. It is an empirical yet spiritual manifestation that occurs repeatedly. Sastra appears and disappears in time and space as the world of time and space itself appears and disappears in an endless cycle.

In the doctrine of Varnavada, divine sound has four dimensions, only one of which is the outer sound that the common person perceives. Because of sastra's particular arrangement of words and the innate relationship between those words and their objects, if one regularly recites the sastra and follows its directives, one can become acquainted with all the dimensions of sound and realize Brahman.

Yet sastra does not tell us that by reading or understanding its conclusions with our intellect the absolute will thus be realized. This is not it's claim. It does not seek to prove by its argument and reasoning that which itself is beyond proof, being eternally self-established. Proof lies in our experience alone of that which is, of that which we are in essence-units of consciousness. Proof of the validity of sastra itself as a valid means of knowing lies in those who have realized its subject through the means recommended therein. And they have not hidden themselves from us.

The sastra reasons with us to take up the means of experiencing its subject and thereby to experience our true self. Those who have realized such descend again to our human reality and speak to us in the common language of humanity, that of reasoning, as well as in joyful exclamations about what they have seen. They are the firsthand witnesses whose testimony is the final word. Printed, it becomes sastra, revealed knowledge, free from human defects.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BonSens
3
***
Offline


Posts: 109
prestolnica
Gender: male
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #127 - 07.01.2003 at 12:04:41
 
Shocked
Kdo pa mislš, da bo tole bral?
Roll Eyes
Sej so ti že povedal, da to nima haska!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mind
5
*****
Offline

Always remember Krishna
and never forget Him
!
Posts: 686
MB
Gender: male
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #128 - 07.01.2003 at 12:08:08
 
Quote:
Teorija evolucije seveda ne more pojasniti začetka ali konca časa, saj to tudi ni bil ne njen namen ne ambicija. Njen namen je bil razložiti in razumeti, kako se lahko biološke vrste pod različnimi vplivi okolja spreminjajo v druge vrste, skratka, kako lahko nastajajo nove (živalske) vrste, od katerih je ena tudi naša, človeška vrsta.


Bardo, verjetno ti je znano da je čas relativen oz. odvisen od percepcije. Zato tudi zival drugače doživlja čas. In zato ga tudi mi doživljamo različno, pa vendar zelo podobno. Podobno pa ga doživljamo zaradi učenja saj smo naučeni koliko traje 1 dan ali 1 ura. Verjetno ti je tudi znan primer dvojčkov, od katerih eden poleti v vesolje  z hitrostjo, ki se približuje svetlobni. Ko pride nazaj je njegov brat starejši on sam je mlajši. In kaj zdaj ? Se je za njega ustavil čas ? Čas se ni ustavil.  In relativnost časa nima ničesar skupnega z upočasnitvijo ali pospešitvijo časa. Gre za to, da se spreminja hitrost delovanja celotne materialne strukture ali sistema vse do najmanjših atomov. Torej tistemu dvojčku ki je poletel v vesolje se ni ustavil čas, ampak je njegovo telo (materialna struktura) delovalo počasneje, torej vse od bitja srca do pretoka krvi in seveda tudi rasti celic.

Glede same evolucijske teorije: Večina ljudi pač verjame različnim znanstvenikom ne računajoč na to, da tudi ti znanstveniki živijo v svojem  filozovskem in ideološkem svetu. Npr. čeprav je nekemu znanstveniku popolnoma  jasno, da slučajni oz. naključni dogodki ne dokazujejo ničesar razen zmede in nereda, bo ta isti znanstvenik-evolucionist  slepo trdil, da je ta čudežni svet kateri se kaže tudi v človeku nastal slučajno oz. da je vse skupaj bilo podvrženo naključju. Naprimer takšen znanstvenik-boiolog priznava, da obstaja "nerazumljiva" harmonija v molekuli proteina in da je je verjetnost, da je to nastalo slučajno čista nula. Ampak ta-isti znanstvenik kljub temu trdi, da je ta-isti protein nastal SLUČAJNO, bilion let prej v primitivnem zemeljskem okolju. In ta znanstvenik se ne ustavi tukaj, on brez dvoma trdi, da je nastal ne samo en, ampak milijoni teh proteinov, ki so se potem nekako čudežno povezali v eno celico. Vse to bo ta znanstvenik trdil z gotovostjo. In ta znanstvenik se imenuje evolucionist. Prav ta človek pa ne bi nikoli dejal, da so trije  cigli ki ležijo poravnani enden na drugem v takšno stanje prišli slučajno. Seveda, bil bi proglašen za bedaka. Ampak čudno je , da takšen človek zna racionalno ocenit vsakodnevne preprostejše situacije obenem pa dajati tako zelo neracionalne zaključke o svojem lastnem obstoju.

Teorija evolucije je torej zanikana v samem startu. Ali lahko verjamemo tej pravljici, da so nastali prvi proteini kot produkt miljontih slučajnosti in so se organizirali v eno harmonijo oz. celico in so se potem spet z produktom triliontih slučajnosti združile te celice v neko harmonijo - v živo bitje ? In iz tega kasneje spet na podlagi očitnega zanikanja verjetnostnega računa razvile ribe, ki so se potem preselile na kopno in iz katerih so nastali plazilci, ptice in miljoni drugih vrst ? Vse to je nastalo brez enega samega samcatega verodostojnega dokaza...vse to je le teorija. Znanstvenikom še do danes ni uspelo najti medvrst kot so naprimer pol-ribe ali  pol-plazilci. Poleg tega niso mogli dokazati v svojih zelo razvitih laboratorijih nastanek niti enega samega proteina ki naj bi nastal-tako trdijo sami v primitivnih pogojih. Oni torej sami sebe zanikajo in sami dokazujejo, da se niti v enem trenutku preteklosti ni niti se nikoli v prihodnosti ne bo zgodil proces evolucije. Seveda pa ne smemo evolucije enačiti z adaptacijskimi spremembami, ki so znanstveno dokazane in ki jih spremljamo v živo tudi dandanes.

Soočeni z vsem tem, se znanstveniki-evolucionisti opirajo le še na prihodnost. Da bodo v prihodnosti njihove teorije potrjene. Že zdaj pa jim bi moralo biti jasno da se to nikoli ne bo zgodilo. Tako je tudi bilo vse do danes. Čeprav je danes jasno (za časa Darwina se je pač to zdelo mogoče ) da je celica tako preveč "komplicirana" , da bi lahko nastala kot plod nekih slučajnosti.

No obstoj Boga se mi  po vsem tem zdi enako ali pa celo bolj verjeten kot evolucijska teorija. Bo pa mi seveda (upam) samo življenje in izkušnje pokazale KDO SEM, ali pa tudi ne Undecided Ampak predvsem se mi zdi pomembno, da se slepo ne poslužujem znanstvenih teorij (dokler niso vedeli da je zemlja okrogla so verjetno imeli zelo popačen pogled na to Kdo smo) zato sem pripravljen najprej predvsem poslušati še druge razlage tega Kdo smo in se potem ravnati v skladu z vsemi informacijami, ki jih imam. Imam pa med drugim tudi informacije o raznoraznih fanatizmih, in zato tudi to informacijo jemljem z vso resnostjo in pod čim širšim zornim kotom.




LP



Back to top
 

Hari bol
 
IP Logged
 
aryan
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #129 - 07.01.2003 at 12:08:50
 
bonsens : tole bo bral vsak iskren clan tegale topika v katerem se pogovarjamo o tem "Kdo smo?". ker je to eno izmed najvecjih vprasanj s katerim se clovek sreca v svojem zivljenju, bo tist ki ga to res iskreno zanima prebral in tud ogotovil, zakaj tega do zdaj ne ve (kdo je) in kako bo to ugotovil in kaj bo s tem pridobil.

jaz sem preprican da tud tebi ne bi skodovalo ce bi sel pozorno skozi text. ce pa kej ne bos razumel glede anglescine ali smisla texta lahko pa kadarkoli vprasas.  
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gape
YaBB Administrator
p
*****
Offline

I love YaBB!
Posts: 13595
The Land of YaBB
Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #130 - 07.01.2003 at 12:18:27
 
tuki morm dat bonsensu prav ... zaradi takih in podobnih ogromnih textov men ne znese sodelovat v debati, v realnem času, ampak grem pol z zaostankom čez ... kar ni nič narobe ... mogoče tko tud mora bit ... definitivno pa si ne morem med šihtom prvošt brat tiste angleščine zgoraj ... ostalo nekako še gre ... to pa ni varjante ... pa kasneje, tko kot vedno pri aryanovih temah ... dej aryan, probi več slovenščine uporabljat, če ni v slovenščini to napisano, napiš ti, če bi nam rad pomagu da razumemo kar kdo še ne razume.
Back to top
 

Lahko pa da se tudi motim ...

The Administrator of this yabb and domain.
WWW WWW  
IP Logged
 
LittleStar
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #131 - 07.01.2003 at 12:28:45
 


Kaj pa ljudje, ki so imeli kakšno (ob)smrtno izventelesno izkušnjo (proti svetlobi, svetlobnim bitjem, globji vpogled v svoje življenje...), ali pa zgolj mistično doživetje; oni pa izvedo kdo so? Ali lahko ubesedijo doživetje? Ali je sploh smiselno iskat odgovore na razumskem nivoju?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andres
5
*****
Offline


Posts: 3724

Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #132 - 07.01.2003 at 12:51:52
 
Little!

Saj niti ne rabiš imeti težko preizkušnjo, da vidiš tunele in ostalo kar sledi, da se zaveš kdo smo.  
Na forumu vem za vsaj tri uporabnike, ki so bili pred tem že skupaj. Nekoč pač, v davnih časih.

Andres
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aryan
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #133 - 07.01.2003 at 12:54:50
 
gape : se zavedam tega kar pocnem in tud men ni lahko, da vas tok mucim in tud sebe s temi angleskimi texti. skor pa se upam obljubit da je bil tole zadnji vecji angleski text, ki pa je iz mojega vidika najbolj pomemben od vseh dosedajsnih. tam notr se razpravlja o razlicnih instrumentih zaznave in njihova nezanesljivost ali zanesljivost. nben od nas noce zvedt necesa sam na pol ali popaceno. se pa drgac opravicujem tebi in ostalim.

littlestar : ko bos prebrala text, bos ugotovila kaj je razum kaj so misticna dozivetja, kaj pa je razodetje in razlicne globine tega razodetja, ki je v koncni fazi nujno potrebno ce hocmo vedt Kdo smo?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
LittleStar
Ex Member




Re: Kdo smo...?
Reply #134 - 07.01.2003 at 13:00:17
 

Andres wrote on 07.01.2003 at 12:51:52:
Little!

Na forumu vem za vsaj tri uporabnike, ki so bili pred tem že skupaj. Nekoč pač, v davnih časih.



Aja?



Quote:
littlestar : ko bos prebrala text, bos ugotovila kaj je razum kaj so misticna dozivetja, kaj pa je razodetje in razlicne globine tega razodetja, ki je v koncni fazi nujno potrebno ce hocmo vedt Kdo smo?


Obljubiš?
Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14