www.tebe-trazim.com

Pusti samosažaljenje kameno, Duh Sveti će nastanit...srce tvoje ranjeno
Sada je 18 stu 2017 15:08

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]




Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 399 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Sljedeće
Autor Poruka
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 25 stu 2014 19:20 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
Zanimljivo, uspio sam toliko pisati i citirati da sve ne stane u jedan post. Dakle GoraneM, ovaj post ide u dva dijela. Slika

DIO PRVI




GoranM napisao:
Opet spiniras i nesuvislo populisticki lupas fraze osporavajuci nesto sto mi ti sam stavljas u usta, a nikada nisam rekao. Nikakav link nije sluzio dokazivanju smislenosti ili vaznosti joge kao takve, vec samo cinjenicnoj egzistenciji odredjenih konkretnih institucija kojima ti sajtovi pripadaju ili koje opisuju.

Pa de onda dokaži tu činjeničnu egzistenciju određenih konkretnih institucija kojima ti sajtovi pripadaju ili ih opisuju.

GoranM napisao:
Da, dokazao sam tocno ono sto sam i tvrdio: da se joga u zdravstvene svrhe primjenjuje u indiji sire, na visim i formaliziranijim nivoima, povijesno duze nego na zapadu, sa formaliziranijim skolovanjima, vise akademskih istrazivanja i tako dalje, dakle da je tvrdnja kako je to zapadna izmisljotina koje uopce nema u Indiji jednostavno netocna.

Gde? Gde si to dokazao? Možeš ovde stavit te dokaze da ih vidimo?

GoranM napisao:
Ima veze sa time sto je Blazevic opetovano u razlicitim izjavama, predavanjima, intervjuima itd tvrdio kako se u Indiji joga ne koristi u te zdravstvene svrhe usprkos tome sto postoji citav niz institucija posvecenih upravo tome, ukljucujuci one u ministarstvu zdravlja indije i sto su najstarije indijske daleko starije od popularnosti joge na zapadu uopce, a kamoli terapijske joge. Dakle u tome je sasvim sigurno pogrijesio.

Gde je to Blažević tvrdio, citiraj ako ti nije problem.

GoranM napisao:
Ako te ne briga ne vidim zasto onda tako zucljivo osporavas, spiniras i skreces raspravu u nesto sto uopce ne tvrdim.

Malo se zekam sa tobom. Ali moram ti biti iskren i priznati da brzo dosadiš čovjeku. A znaš zakaj je to tako, to da brzo dosadiš? Zato jer ovde pišemo o jogi. Kužiš! O jogi. Koga živo zanima šta je joga? To je kao da raspravljamo šta bolje čisti: "Super Jon" ili "Mr. Muscolo". Slika Koga briga?! Ali znaš šta slijedi kad mi dosadiš, jel? Već si jednom probao.

GoranM napisao:
Sasvim mi je jasno da je sve ovo nebitno za srz religijske kritike, da i dalje katolicima ne utjece na misljenje (barem dok neki autoritet misljenje ne promjeni, pa ce i oni) itd.

Skužio si?! Lol. Kakav god da autoritet bio, i kako god da promijeni mišljenje, sigurno neće promijenit mišljenje da kaže: prakticirajte te jaga bajke.

GoranM napisao:
Upravo zbog toga ne zelim uopce ulaziti u teoloske rasprave i u potpunosti podrzavam svacije pravo da sa religijskog stanovista smatra sto god zeli, pa i da je joga sotonsko zlo.

A ja bi baš to volio, da ulaziš u teološke rasprave, a ne da se baviš babljim pričama.

GoranM napisao:
Ne mogu medjutim prihvatiti sirenje neistna u to ime pa se samo tim segmentima provjerljivih i lako osporivih dezinformacija koje Blazevic & co sire ovdje i bavim.

Koje su to neistine koje Blažević & Co. šire?

GoranM napisao:
Ako je linkan Blazevicev tekst gdje eksplicitno kaze kako se u indiji joga ne vjezba radi zdravlja i ne postoji medicinska joga, a zatim dani linkovi i na sluzbene drzavne, sa drzavom povezane i privatne institucije u Indiji koje se upravo time bave u puno sirem, dubljem obimu i kroz duze vremensko razdoblje nego je to slucaj na zapadu svakako je dokaziva jedna od dvije stvari:

Blazevic namjerno iskrivljuje stvarno stanje stvari i dezinformira

ili

Ne poznaje stvarno stanje stvari pa nije bas niti neki ekspert za te teme.


Nema bas neke trece opcije.

Ili, treća opcija: te linkove je napisao N.N. A sve šta N.N. piše nije baš nešta za čime bi se moglo povodit, jel?

GoranM napisao:
Ne.

Znači, vi ste ko protestanti. Ima vas 40 000 i svaki "dere" po svome. U narodu bi se reklo: što se babi htilo, to se babi snilo. Da mi objasni jednu stvar: kako da ja znam da si baš ti GoranM pravi jogičar? Kako da znam da baš ti širiš ono šta su Sai Baba, Šiva, i ostali 77 998 hundu bogova zapisali? Jer i 39 999 jogičar tvrdi baš to isto šta i ti tvrdiš, i oni tvrde da govore istinu o tim hundu štorijama.


GoranM napisao:
Ne postoji centralni autoritet, ne postoji dogma, ne postoji univerzalna doktrina. I hinduizam i budizam i jainizam (i eventualno sikhizam, taoizam i gdje god se vec joga ili njeni elementi pojavljivali) osim sto su u startu razlicite religije nisu niti unutar sebe homogene, unficirane religije sa jedinstvenim autoritetom, teologijom i dogmom, pa cesto cak niti spisima. Sto god citirao primjenjivo je samo za sljedbenke tog gurua ili tu skupinu/instituciju i slicno, ne moze biti primjenjivo na jogu u globalu

Dakle, nisam pogrešio kad sam gore napisao: što se babi htilo, to se babi snilo.

GoranM napisao:
Sai Baba je potpuno nebitan, vrlo popularan covjek ali je u osnovni moderni newage guruizam, nije cak bio niti pravi Swami (redovnik) iako se tako nazivao, nije poznato da je ikad formalno primio monaske zavjete u bilo kojoj hindu tradiciji.

Dokaži da Sai Baba nije pravi Swami (redovnik). Meni je on baš izgledao kao pravi Swami. Lol. Slika

GoranM napisao:
Osim toga nisam previse religiozan i ne zanima me sto vodje nekog religijskog ogranka kazu i prenapuhavaju, kako sa krscanske tako i sa hindu strane, puno mi je zanimljivije sto kaze povijest.

A šta kaže povijest?

GoranM napisao:
Mozda ako bi razgovarali o teologiji, dogmatici, filozofiji i slicno.

A zašto ne bi o tome razgovarali?

GoranM napisao:
Ako pak razgovaramo o onim mjerljivim fizckim cinjenicama, o povijesti crkve, o socialnim kretanjima, o financijama itd onda je relevantnije sto kaze bilo koji povjesnicar od Tome ili Augustna.

Koji povjesničar?

GoranM napisao:
Svatko moze otvoriti stranicu na netu. Ali ne moze bas svatko otvoriti stranicu na domeni vlade odredjene zemlje, a cak i da je tako sposoban haker brzo bi ju obrisali.

Konačno da se jednom slažemo.

GoranM napisao:
Mislim da postajanje stranice vladine agencije na sluzbenoj domeni ministarstva sasvim dovoljno za potrebe ove nase virtualne rasprave dokazuje da takva agencija stvarno i postoji..

Na tim stranicama piše da postoji, sad, dal ona stvarno postoji, to je već drugo pitanje. Na službenim stranicama ruske i kineske vlade piše da poštuju ljudska prava, na stranicama vlade Republike Hrvatske piše da će BDP rasti 1.4%, na službenim stranicama američke vlade piše da nisu prisluškivali vlastite građane i europske lidere, na stranicama republike srpske piše: ustaše napale srbiju. Razumiš na šta ciljam? Na službenim stranicama piše svašta, a jel to tako? To je već drugo pitanje.

GoranM napisao:
...ako vec smatras da sam lazov kada kazem da sam sudjelovao na njihovim konferecijama (prezentacijama znanstvenh medicinskih istrazivanja) na jednom od najvecih drzavnih medicinskih instituta pa sam i fizicki vidio da postoje.

Tako dugo dok moja noga ne stupi u njihove ustanove, i tako dugo dok moje oko ne vidi te ustanove- ne, nipošto neću vjerovati!

GoranM napisao:
U tom slucaju ostaje samo prihvatiti najjaci dokaz koji je moguce bez fizicke posjete, a mislim da su sluzbene stranice ministarstva indijske vlade sasvim solidan.

S obzirom na to šta sve svijetske vlade pišu na svojim stranicama, taj dokaz mi izgleda veoma slabašan.


GoranM napisao:
A ono, njemu je to bacanje para, meni je na lemozine, krstenja i vjencanja... svaka budala svoje veselje.

Ako si već ovom rečenicom povukao paralelu između kršćanstva i joge, onda da spomenem nekoliko stvari. Doista, kako si napisao, sve je moguće;


In religious belief as elsewhere, we must take our chances, recognizing that we could be wrong, dreadfully wrong. There are no guarantees; the religious life is a venture; foolish and debilitating error is a permanent possibility. (If we can be wrong, however, we can also be right.) Alvin Plantinga "Warranted Christian Belief"


Ali ako bolje pogledaš, postoji jedna bitna razlika između tvojih bajki i kršćanskih bajki.



After many years of exile from the courts of Egypt where he had been raised, a Hebrew man named Moses, while tending the flock of his father-in-law on the slopes of Mount Sinai, saw an extraordinary sight: a bush that was on fire but was not being consumed. He resolved to take a closer look. As he approached, he heard a voice: “Moses! Moses! … Come no nearer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground” (Ex 3:5). Then the speaker identified himself as “the God of your father … the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob” (Ex 3:6), and he gave Moses a mission to liberate his people enslaved in Egypt. When Moses asked for the name of this mysterious speaker, he received the following answer: “I am who am” (Ex 3:14). Moses was asking a reasonable enough question. He was wondering which of the many gods—deities of the river, the mountain, the various nations—this was. He was seeking to define and specify the nature of this particular heavenly power. But the answer he received frustrated him, for the divine speaker was implying that he was not one god among many, not this deity rather than that, not a reality that could, even in principle, be captured or delimited by a name. In a certain sense, God’s response amounted to the undermining of the very type of question Moses posed. His name was simply “to be,” and therefore he could never be mastered. The ancient Israelites honored this essential mysteriousness of God by designating him with the unpronounceable name of YHWH. Following the prompting of this conversation between Moses and God, the mainstream of the Catholic theological tradition has tended not to refer to God as a being, however supreme, among many. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition, rarely designates God as ens summum (the highest being); rather he prefers the names ipsum esse (to be itself) or qui est (the one who is). In fact, Aquinas goes so far as to say that God cannot be defined or situated within any genus, even the genus of “being.” This means that it is wrong to say that trees, planets, automobiles, computers, and God—despite the obvious differences among them—have at least in common their status as beings. Aquinas expresses the difference that obtains between God and creatures through the technical language of essence and existence. In everything that is not God there is a real distinction between essence (what the thing is) and existence (that the thing is); but in God no such distinction holds, for God’s act of existence is not received, delimited, or defined by anything extraneous to itself. A human being is the act of existence poured, as it were, into the receptacle of humanity, and a podium is the act of existence poured into the form of podium-ness, but God’s act of existence is not poured into any receiving element. To be God, therefore, is to be to be. Saint Anselm of Canterbury, one of the greatest of the early medieval theologians, described God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” At first blush this seems straightforward enough: God is the highest conceivable thing. But the longer one meditates on Anselm’s description, the stranger it becomes. If God were simply the supreme being—the biggest reality among many—then God plus the world would be greater than God alone. But in that case he would not be that than which nothing greater can be thought. Zeus, for example, was, in ancient mythology, the supreme deity, but clearly Zeus plus the other gods, or Zeus plus the world of nature, would be greater than Zeus alone. Thus the God whom Anselm is describing is not like this at all. Though it is a very high paradox, the God whom Anselm describes added to the world as we know it is not greater than God alone. This means that the true God exceeds all of our concepts, all of our language, all of our loftiest ideas. God (YHWH) is essentially mysterious, a term, by the way, derived from the Greek muein (to shut one’s mouth). How often the prophets and mystics of the Old Testament rail against idolatry, which is nothing other than reducing the true God to some creaturely object that we can know and hence try to control. The twentiethcentury theologian Karl Rahner commented that “God” is the last sound we should make before falling silent, and Saint Augustine, long ago, said, “si comprehendis, non est Deus” (if you understand, that isn’t God). All of this formal theologizing is but commentary on that elusive and confounding voice from the burning bush: “I am who am.” Robert Barron "Catholicism"

Oko toga Boga se filozofija "vrti" 2500 godina. Ne oko Šive, Sai Babe, boga sunca Ra ili bilo kojeg od 78 000 hinduističkih bogova. Nego oko toga koji je ovde spomenuti. Oko toga, jednoga jedinoga. Oko toga Boga su se filozofi vrtili. Nema ozbiljan filozof koji se njime nije bavio, bio on ateist ili teist. A de ti meni reci jednog ozbiljnog filozofa koji se bavio tim joga bajkama. Samo jednog jedinog mi navedi. U tome je velika razlika. U tvoje joga bogove vjeruju curice i mala djeca, a u kršćanskog Boga ili Boga filozofije vjeruju naprosto zastrašujući umovi. Vjeruj mi, ne želiš sresti te umove. Jednog ćeš ipak danas upoznati, i to na vlastitoj koži. Znaš ti GoraneM tko je Hans Urs von Balthasar? Znaš kak izgleda kad se taj čovjek "razmaše"? Sad ćeš vidit. Sad ćeš vidit kaj bu ti Hans Urs von Balthasar napravil. Lol. Slika

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 25 stu 2014 19:27 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
DIO DRUGI (onaj dio gde će te Hans Urs von Balthasar jednostavno razvaliti). Slika


If Christ were no more than the supreme example of natural man, and Christianity only the noblest form of natural religion, it would now no longer be worthwhile being a Christian. Our assessment of what belongs to history is subject to fluctuation, and some past or future person might dispute Christ’s preeminence. Since in Christ God became man, Christianity is bound, in the eyes of unbelievers, to seem merely human. But for the believer this view is not simply a partial misunderstanding; it is a complete misapprehension, a scandal, however solemnly and religiously it be expressed, as in the act of the high priest rending his garments, when he heard the answer of Christ. For faith, all human religions and philosophical systems seem to approximate to one another, and Christianity seems to become more and more isolated. However variegated the shop window display of philosophies of life may seem, from a distance they come to look very much alike, all equally of human provenance and human proportions. Their scale, however, is limited, and likewise their application. What man can achieve unaided, what he can discover and sketch out in the way of a philosophy of life can be surveyed and grasped in its general lines, even if not in all its details, and classified. However bold his mental flights, whether in a dirigible or a rocket, he invariably takes himself along on the journey. In other words, human thought, philosophical or religious, starts out from man, ascends with him, operates on his scale. This does not thereby make it “immanent in the world”, confined to man and his world. It is, in fact, in his intention, “world-transcending” in the sense of Pascal: L’homme passe infiniment l’homme. Yet however much man transcends himself, the act of transcending is, as the word betrays, an act posited, ventured, in reference to man. Even when he negates himself in order to affirm the other, he can only understand the affirmation in relation to what he negates. It would be a want of gratitude to the Creator to represent this power of transcending as nugatory, this mode of contact with what is beyond the world as a mere fabrica idolorum, and necessarily blasphemous. But it would be equally lacking in gratitude to the Redeemer and giver of grace not to see in grace something wholly new and other, crowning and perfecting man’s attempts, precisely because it first shatters and overturns them. The natural man and his reason go out beyond themselves, they are “transcending”; God’s grace, which we take hold of in faith, is something indwelling: and in that sense “immanent”. It is not our movement toward God, but God’s movement to us. It is heaven projected into our world. It is a participation in the divine nature, essentially as sanctifying grace, consciously as faith, hope and charity. The natural man is man seeking God, grace is God who has found man. The former is the man who applies himself to a kind of spectral analysis of his own being so as to deduce therefrom the composition of the star from which he has proceeded as if by radiation, and with which he must have some sort of kinship. The latter is the descent of the divine light among men not only to illuminate, purify and warm them, but, through grace, to make them also shine with a light not of this world. It should never be forgotten that these two movements are in opposite directions. It is true that the first is for the sake of the second, and so is, in some way, a condition of it; also that the first cannot be understood, in the Creator’s design, apart from the second, which is its justification and the solution to its riddles. But all this belongs to another part of the inquiry, and we shall return to it at the end. Before making a synthesis, it is necessary to distinguish what is to be united. Otherwise, if we carry over, just as they are, the categories and conclusions of philosophy into the sphere of faith and theology, we do a disservice to both, divinizing what is secular, and secularizing what is divine. The work of synthesis, moreover, is not to be carried out on the abstract plane, by speculating on the relation between the natural and the supernatural; it is ultimately a matter of christology. For in Christ, God and man, God has opened himself to the world, and in this movement of descent has determined the course of every mode of ascent of man to him. Christ is the one and only criterion, given in the concrete, by which we measure the relations between God and man, grace and nature, faith and reason; and Christ is, though he has a human nature, a divine Person. This is the determining factor in the relationships. His humanity is the expression and instrument of the divinity, and by no means is the divinity the expression and instrument of the humanity. In every respect, the humanity is fulfilled in that it sees itself, with all its upward stirrings, brought into the service of God’s revelation, into the downward movement of his grace and love. The peculiarity of the standpoint of faith in contrast with that of reason will be brought out by three examples, all converging from different directions into the one center.

Created being is characterized by an inner tension, a nonidentity, which has been described by Thomism in recent years as a “real distinction” between essence and existence. This tension of finite being, as created, is not its own existence, but receives it, or, in other words, never realizes its essence in its totality, but is always in process of becoming. This is what distinguishes the creature from the divine being, always perfectly fulfilled, absolutely identical with itself—a contrast greater than any similarity between them, in tanta similitudine major dissimilitudo [such perfect likeness yet how unlike]. It is a distinction not merely to our way of thinking, but inherent in the very being of things—distinctio realis, or, at least, cum fundamento in realitate, which, taken seriously, leads to the first—and sets its stamp on the whole life of the finite being, and lies at the root of its structure as indicated by Aristotle: the tension between act and potency in its living, moving dynamism of charged potentiality and self-realizing actuality, and always a tension which is a striving toward an end: entelecheia. If this life is spirit, its basic constitution may be conceived in the following categories: on the theoretical plane, it moves between the poles: potentiality—actuality, ideal—reality; on the practical plane between the poles: value—being, obligation—performance. Now if the concept of entelechy also implies that “ideality” and obligation are not extraneous to being, but deeply embedded in reality and being, then the movement and tension spring from some lack, some shortcoming in this reality, making it reach out beyond itself. For it to be and remain in being, it must become; become what it is, and yet, since it is becoming, is not yet; to maintain itself it must strive, and, in striving, fulfill its own law. This law, insofar as unfulfilled, is abstract; if it is to become living in the concrete, it must be realized anew in each individual. The life of the created spirit is only vigorous when it is constantly in process of self-realization; it starts to languish the moment it becomes satisfied with what it has already attained. Even what it has in fact inherited it must win for itself, in order to possess it. Only as an incomplete indigent life is it a parable of eternal life, as intended by the Creator. Thus, in its very striving, in that very dissimilar act, it is similar to the nonstriving, eternally fulfilled life of God. God, however, in giving us his grace and infusing, along with it, faith, hope and charity, gives us a participation in his eternal life, something beyond all the life of striving which is that of the creature. Eternal life, the unattainable end of all human striving, is opened up to us in grace and made present. “He that believes has eternal life.” He has it in faith, not in vision, but he has it not only eschatologically, as promised, but also as a present reality. Through grace, he is a son of God not only in the future, but here and now; he is not only called to be, but is a brother of Christ. It is a grace of sonship and brotherhood that he has received, making him a new creature, born again, transplanted, causing him to die to himself for Christ to live in him. It places deep in his heart the witness of the Holy Spirit, testifying this sonship to his own spirit, and so he no longer lives of and for himself, but by the power of Christ and of God, by God’s love which is poured out into his heart by the Holy Spirit. He lives, henceforth, by Christ’s love, given him so that he may love his brethren by the power of this love, give his life for them, as Christ the Redeemer did, Grace is indeed not separative, but unitive. It would be an incorrect emphasis to say that “only” by grace are we what Christ is by nature, namely sons of God, as though grace created a disparity. What we ought to say is that grace is so great that we, out of pure grace, in our own way, may claim to be what Christ, the giver of grace, is by nature in his singular way. The divine nature being necessarily transcendent, the creature’s participation in it can only be explained by taking as our starting point the hypostatic union in Christ. Christ is unique in that he is not one creature among all the others, on a par with them; this is witnessed to by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and signified by the virginity of his Mother. His creaturely status is an expression and function of his eternal and uncreated Sonship. This is the real ground and justification of the Council of Ephesus’ anti-Nestorian definition of μία φύσις, even when taken in conjunction with the Chalcedonian δύο φύσεις. In virtue of the hypostatic union the eternal Son of Man (under the law of the real distinction) can represent the Trinity in the world. The extent to which he does so (Jn 1:18) has not yet been sufficiently explored in theology. This, however, is not our present concern, which is rather to bring out that the whole of Christian ethics must be christologically based and, therefore, does not primarily consist in the Greek idea of man imitating God (μίμησις θεοῡ), but in the gospel idea of the following of Christ (ἀκολουθέω, for which scripture, significantly enough, has no adequate corresponding substantive). Following Christ, after first leaving all things, means in the New Testament a movement toward the Messiah, at once unconditional and regardless of consequences, an inchoate act of presence where he is, developing, when and as he wills, into an imitation of him. The saying about bearing one’s cross is an extreme case of this; but even here the word used to describe it is “following” and not “imitation”. Whenever following implies imitation, it is always in respect of the way divine love abased itself. The word occurs once in the synoptics in connection with the strife for the first places, once in John in connection with the washing of the feet; in addition, there is the use of the word “example” in the final discourses, referring to the giving up of life. Yet however urgently the commandment of love is expressed, how undemanding, in fact, what is commanded! It is something far less than heroic, something plain and obvious, though the persons addressed have the status of “followers”, which means of participators in the mystery of the hypostatic union. For what has to be done is already performed, as to its inner substance, in the Head. What the Head does is certainly the unimaginably greatest thing that a man has ever done. Yet it is not superhuman, but divine-human, and so all-human—not however, in the sense that all men do it or can do it, but that it represents, once and for all, what God is as distinct from man, and what he created man in order to express. “ ‘Υπὲρ οὐσίᾳ οὐσιώθη. ᾽Εν τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἡμῶν ὑπερφυὴς ἦν” (Denis). Of him we have to predicate each of these pairs of opposites: effort to obey and unquestioning obedience, real temptation and the impossibility of yielding, profound dereliction and inseparability from the Father. Here is the abyss of tragedy beyond all tragedy. We are not required to repeat, on our part, what Christ, God and man, has done. It is enough for us to know in following him that we participate in his riches through their superabundance. The natural virtues are acquired by effort on the natural plane. The supernatural virtues are infused through grace, which is a participation in the nature of God. They are the form in which our finite spirit becomes capable of living the divine life, which is infinite. What it is endowed with, infused with, is not just a “faculty”, but a fullness of life, from which it only has to draw in order to water the entire garden of its finitude and temporalness, and so make eternal growths come forth. Thus the soul in grace does not live in a state of indigence advancing toward fullness, but in a state of fullness radiating out into the poverty and darkness of this world. The Lord is the light of the world, and it is given the soul to be its light together with him. All that was said about the essential constitution of the finite has become for the moment of no importance; for the just man lives by faith, that is, by the gift of eternal life. His acts are performed not as part of his striving toward perfection, but as proceeding from perfection; and not in the consciousness of the difference between what is and what ought to be, but in the clear knowledge that the divine unity of what is and what should be, that lives in him by grace, must be maintained in his life. This is the conception that lies at the basis of the whole ethic of the gospels, of Paul and John. It means that we have not first to strive for the unity of what is and what should be, for it is already realized in God; that we have received a participation in this process, and that it must be unquestioningly realized in us. This obligation, since it is grounded on a divine necessity, requires the most complete commitment of the whole person, the application of all his powers. The demands it makes are so pressing that, in comparison, the categorical imperative of natural ethics is but a feeble summons. Thus Paul argues in Romans 6: since we are already dead with Christ, we cannot, should not conduct ourselves as if we were still living as before. Thus John in his letters, when he brings out the fundamental obligation of Christians: “In this we have known the charity of God, because he has laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren”; “If God has so loved us, we also ought to love one another”; “This commandment we have from God, that he who loves God love also his brother.” This necessity arises from the gift already implanted in us by God of his own identity, and so is not just an intensification of the claims of natural ethics. The urgency of its demands is not the product of a necessity indwelling in human nature, but of something placed there by God, at a deeper level than any reality of our own. It is something that lays claim to our whole being and, by that very fact, imposes an inescapable obligation. The natural life can only be, like eros in Plato’s conception, a life of want and of attempts to satisfy it. It strives ceaselessly and insatiably to fullness of being, and its nearest approach to this is the actual effort involved. The Christian life, the life of grace, of faith and charity, is necessarily one that proceeds from fullness of being, and is, therefore, a life of thanksgiving: eucharistia. Enriched, beyond all hope and beyond all satisfaction of its indigence, from the abundant riches of eternal life, it can but be a continuous testimony to the gifts of grace. So it was that the psalmist lived in uninterrupted praise of God’s mercy, and that Mary sang her Magnificat. So it is that the Christian, to whom eternal life has been given in faith and charity, has only to let himself be led by the current of this life so as to become himself wholly an expression of it. Consequently, in the Christian life, there are no “stages of development” in the sense of the ascetic and mystical “degrees” in the schemes of other religions. The only stages are those of the development of the life of grace in us, the ever more complete elimination of what blocks the way of grace. The Christian may, and must, constantly connect up with the riches already at hand, laid down in advance, and the more he does so and acts accordingly, the better Christian will he be. To take an already present perfection in the natural sphere for granted, or an end already attained, in this way, would be quite absurd, the kind of thing a beginner might do who wants to play the master. But for the Christian to refuse to set out from this fullness as his starting point would be equivalent to unbelief. The apostles were constantly at pains to rid ordinary Christians of this kind of unbelief, to encourage their faith to a complete reversal of standpoint, to make them conduct their lives from a point which they had only hoped to reach by Christian living. The more thorough the change of perspective, and the more fearless the leap, the easier it becomes. And those who try to follow the two ways at once—that of faith which starts with Christ, and that of man’s indigence going to the Absolute—get caught up in an inextricable tangle. There is no common measure between nature and grace, reason and faith; only the order grounded in the person of Christ: nature as the expression and servant of the supernatural. In this service it will not be found wanting. To understand the divine life of grace in us, it is essential not to revert to the view that the infusion of the theological virtues means in some sense or other that they are acquired. Faith and love, with which hope is conjoined, are to be understood primarily as the expression of the eternal life communicated to man; as something in consequence, far beyond the possibilities of the natural intelligence and will, for they spring immediately from the inmost life of the Trinity. Faith and charity, as understood by the gospels, are inseparable in this life. Faith is the surrender of one’s own views, and can be permanent only as the outcome of love and fidelity. It means preferring the divine truth before one’s own truth, because God is what he is. Faith is the intellect’s love for God. According to Thomas Aquinas, love is the principle of all merit (I, II, 114, 4), ultimately also of the merit of faith, of its obscurity, of the renunciation it entails. Love itself is the surrender of one’s entire will and being through faith, in the conviction that God merits to be placed first in every respect and is deserving of total surrender; in a trust, too, that in its knowledge surpasses all knowledge. And it is precisely in this infinite surrender and self-renunciation, in this absolute preference of the Thou to the I, that the life of the Trinity consists; for it is a life in which the Persons can be conceived only “relatively”, that is, through one another. The Father only is, as he who generates the Son, he who surrenders and pours himself out in the Son; and the Son is, only as he who utterly surrenders himself to the Father, acknowledging himself to be the Father’s glory and image; the Spirit is, only as witnessing and expressing the love between the Father and the Son, and proceeding from them. “Faith” and love are, in this sense, the core of the divine being and life, though faith, as here understood, includes all vision and knowledge, and therefore is taken in its analogous sense. Nonetheless, since eternal life, in order to be life, transcends itself to infinity, this “faith” cannot be a knowledge in any way restricted in scope; any limitation would cause this life and interchange of love to weaken and grow cold. But the supreme excellence of the eternal life does not exclude its capability of being present in various degrees. The faith and love by which man in grace lives comes from the infinity of the eternal life. If we confine ourselves to analyzing them as psychological acts, we leave out of account their inmost essence. Indeed they are psychological acts, but not acts of the old I, which “dies daily”, but of that mysterious new I, which is only accessible through faith and love. The “natural” man directs his thought by the light of reason into the darkness of mystery; the Christian thinks in the light of the mystery of faith, by which he illuminates the darkness of the world.

At the core of created being is the tension between essence and existence, which is the basis of the category ens commune. On another level, though closely connected with the first, it is characterized by the tension between the universal and the particular, the abstract and the concrete. For there is no particular that is not the particularizing of a universal, the concretizing of an abstract, that cannot be subsumed under a more general category; nor, however, is there any universal which cannot be represented in a particular. For this reason, each pole presupposes the other, and elucidates the other. What has never been met before loses its strangeness, once it can be incorporated in something already known, and the bare universal takes on coloring when we can recall a concrete example. The confusion of the mass of individual things is cleared up by their assignment to various species, from which they derive unity, nature and law, and the species themselves, in which all individuality seems to vanish, receive an identity, a history and a significance from the undeniable character of what exists here and now. Intellect and sense, knowledge of the universal and view of the particular, condition one another, for the being of the world is so constituted as to correspond to this polarity, and so to reflect the divine unity in the mutual tension and irreducibility of generic and individual unity. This is why human thought, philosophy, oscillates between two impossible ideologies, realism and nominalism. The truth lies between the two, though never finally established, just as being itself lies somewhere between the universal and the particular. Likewise human religion and mysticism may seek to dissolve individuality in the purely universal, or to escape the curse of the collective that reduces all to the same level, in order to engage itself with the purely individual; but both these attempts at evasion are held up by the reality of being and what it comprises. No individual can be, as such, universal, and no universal individual. But here also the two are identical in God, and, in the incarnation of Christ, God is brought into the world. Christ is neither one individual among others, since he is God and so not susceptible of comparison, nor is he the norm in the sense of a universal, since he is this individual. Because he is God, he is a Universale concretum, a Concretum universale. It is for this reason that he is outside our most elementary modes of thought. He cannot, under any aspect, be classified. Neither in his particular nor in his universal aspect can he enter into comparison with any other. In philosophy it is true to say that the phoenix, an individual that in itself exhausts the species, is a contradiction, an impossibility. Theology, on the contrary, starts out from Christ who, as this individual, is universal, because embodying the absolute norm, and who, as this contingent being within history, is the necessary being above all history and nature; he it is to whom, as Head, all things in heaven and earth must be brought back. He is indeed a man, and yet not an individual among others, since what distinguishes one man from another, the person, is in his case God. And he is, on the other hand, “the meaning of the Law”, the supreme norm; yet he does not share the essential property of all secular laws and norms, that of being separable from the individual case. Consequently neither nominalism nor extreme realism is applicable to him; and it would be a mistake to imagine that, in proceeding from the abstractness of the early medieval realism to the supposed concreteness of the later nominalism, one can get closer to the essence of Christianity. The uniqueness of Christ consists in this, that God came into the world in him alone, and no process of abstraction, no reduction to universal principles is of any avail for an understanding of this unity. This is the “nominalistic” side of Christianity. At the same time, Christ is the divine Logos in the world, who is himself the measure and rule for all abstract law and every concrete event. This is the “realistic”, “Platonist” side of Christianity, and also the “Aristotelian” side, the maintenance of the rights of sense over against pure reason. “That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled, of the word of life. . . .” This uniqueness of Christ, which everything in this world, both singular and general, depends on is the manifestation within creation of the uniqueness of God. God is not only one, he is the One, the Unique. Every creature has something of his uniqueness, but only in the setting of the greater dissimilarity arising from the tension between the general and the individual, which even the created spirit does not wholly escape. But in Christ the Spirit is a divine Person and, in its quality of person, is inseparable from the personal community of the Trinity. This community is not generic; it is what is most singular, but it is this precisely as community. It is an identity that wholly surpasses our imagining, as does the way in which the creaturely nonidentity between I and We is enriched beyond measure in the eternal ground wherein we are united through the uniqueness of Christ. This uniqueness of Christ, being the uniqueness of God, in no way pertains to the world or is explicable in terms of the world, or comprehensible to it. Yet he lets us participate in it, giving it to his body, which is also his bride, the Church. He gives it, within this body, to his members, who, marked with the signs of his uniqueness, are visible to the world, at least negatively, as what “is not of this world”. The world must, therefore, hate Christians, because it hates Christ, and, hating him, hates the Father (Jn 15:18ff.). Now we cannot subsume God under any general concept, not even that of being, for this is essentially analogous, that is, its universality is not adequate to raise it in any relationship whatever above God, not even a logical one. Consequently it is impossible to infer, from the uniqueness of God, the least thing that would not be the outcome of God’s free self-revelation; nor can anything that directly depends on our participation through grace in God be subsumed under any of the categories of this world. We may perhaps, for the sake of logical convenience, apply the concept of societas perfecta both to the Church and the state, but such an application has no validity in the ontological order. The body of Christ, its presence by grace among men, is not only on quite a different level of being from that of the state, but, by its very uniqueness, is not amenable to any subsumption in the real order. Christian thought, therefore, is radically different from the purely natural mode of thinking, which always proceeds by way of classification. Nothing that has to do with God’s supernatural working out of salvation in the world is capable of classification. Certainly each event in it points to the uniqueness of God ever anew encountering us. With each event it manifests itself more, and we are caught up further into it; but this does not mean that it becomes more familiar to us, as a subject becomes more familiar as we work at it. One can dominate a subject by mastering its general laws and grasping their application to individual cases. But from the thousands of events of the Old Testament it is impossible to construct a single a priori theory as to how God could or must have revealed himself in addition to them. We can come to know God, his works, his mind, his wisdom as revealed to us through his grace. We can learn better to understand the meaning of his present and future acts through his past ones, and the whole economy of salvation, with its teachings and prophecies, its constantly renewed applications, all the promises it contains and their fulfillments, spurs us on toward this understanding. Yet with all this abundance of spiritual riches given to us by God, we are not entitled to deduce laws by which we could master the process of salvation and God’s working. We can only understand this process in the measure we are willing to hear right to the end, and to involve ourselves wholly in the drama, insofar, therefore, as personal faith and self-giving love remain the foundation and summit of all our knowledge, for faith and love are a participation in the divine love, and the God of grace is not to be known without the God of grace. Christian knowledge, therefore, advances not so much in breadth—new truth is not attained by the application of logic—as in depth, in that faith reaches through the apparent finiteness of the words and acts which constitute revelation to the infinite abyss of the divine wisdom therein contained. Certainly this depth is itself capable of verbal expression, since it is a depth of the Word, and so theology is possible. But in theology the divine content is not expanded and explored on the level of the human mind, but rather the human mind is raised up and carried along in the mysterious dimension of God’s own selfrevelation.


The being of the world is in a state of tension between essence and existence, between the generic and the individual. But a being that is spiritual knows this is its structure, which is essentially one of movement and unrest. It is a structure that has no permanence in itself, and so is a standing proof of its contingency and creatureliness. And as a creature and a nature, the being subject to this tension is drawn in all its fibres back to the abyss from which it originated and in which its dynamism is appeased, that is, in the absolute identity of God, in the pure Being, beyond all distinction of essence and existence, in the pure One, beyond all division of generic and individual unity. From this it is easy to see how all natural religion, mysticism and philosophy must envisage our relationship with God. On the assumption that God had not revealed himself otherwise than in the constitution of created being, creation alone would have to serve as a guide to him. Everything in it bears his trace, each essence as well as each existence, each universal as well as each particular. Each element presents itself as relevant here, and is so presented also by its counterpart. The idea that God, as Creator, has no sort of relation to what he created, and that this expresses nothing of his thought, and therefore of his being, is absurd. And yet a cleavage runs through the very heart of the creature. There is within it no hidden sphere of identity, no place where it may venture to assert its existence as necessary, its individuality as of universal application. Consequently it knows its poles only as relative, the one only through the other, only for the sake of the other, and both so involved in the relationship that, apart from it, they could not be assigned any intelligible content at all. This relativity reveals itself progressively; it increases the deeper man penetrates in thought and experience. Everything that he and the world is bears traces of God, but, in the end, it never manifests him. There is a certain similarity, but it dissolves in an ever greater dissimilarity. Everything points to God, but he is the Wholly Other, the Unknown. And he is most unknown when he transcends even the name of the Wholly Other, and becomes the Not Other (Non aliud). There is a via affirmativa, but it issues in the via negativa, in which we know and reverence God more profoundly, because we set aside all statements about him that do not describe him as he is. There cannot really be a third course, at all events not as a kind of synthesis of the two, in which knowledge by analogy—similarity in even greater dissimilarity—may be surpassed. It will be either the expression of the creature’s continued aspirations, ever unsatisfied, or else of the fact that God has revealed himself in a degree far beyond the possibilities of nature. Revelation, however, does not begin at the point where man might have expected it. It does not come about when he has passed through all that is relative in order to attain the absolute, when by a supreme effort he attempts to put his humanity behind himself in order to attain to some intimation of the divine. Natural mysticism and philosophy necessarily travel along this path, the way of negation and supersession of self; but it only knows the abstract opposition between relative and absolute, and can only attain the absolute in constantly transcending all that is relative. It must travel the way of “ascent”, the way of the Platonist eros, seeking, by ridding itself by “degrees”, of all that confines it, to become free of all barriers and, departing in the night, like a thief, from the house of its finitude, to enter that of infinity. What characterizes all mysticism and religious philosophy outside Christianity is —with all its delight in the senses—a distinct tendency to do away with becoming, to merge all that is finite in the abyss of the infinite God, to sink all definite words and ideas into the aboriginal ground of σιγή, of silence. Chinese and Indians, Greeks and Arabians, Plotinus, Eriugena and Böhme, Schelling and Rilke all agree in this. Christianity alone takes an optimistic course. The Word has become flesh. God has shown himself not on the farthest boundary of the world, but in its midst, indeed in its lowliest part. And since he prepared himself a body within the sphere of the finite, man does not draw near to him by denying all that limits him. A movement of ascent to God leaving the world behind was only justified as long as God had not descended, not revealed himself in a human body, in human words. (But that means never.) Any such attempt at ascent is not merely made less necessary, it is wholly superseded by God’s descent to man. Man had, understandably enough, tried to forge a way for himself, but God shows another way. And it is not for man to try to combine the two or even to incorporate God’s way into his own. There is no call for him to tax as heretical the attempt to forge a way to God. So long as no better course offers itself, one must make do with what one has; and if God does not put forth his hand, man must use his own powers to reach out to God. This is perfectly in order—or rather, would be, if God had not revealed himself from the very outset. God’s action in revealing himself makes an end of the mainly negative theology, in the sense in which the natural man must necessarily understand it. God is primarily a known God, a God who has disclosed himself, has shown who he is, and who has sent into us his Spirit, the very Spirit who searches the deep things of God and makes them known to us. We see the Son, and in him the Father, in faith now, in vision later. But faith and vision are so near each other, promise and fulfillment are so conjoined, that we already believe as if we saw, for we love the Son, who sees the Father; and we love the brethren in the love with which the Father and Son love one another; and, in so loving, we know what God is. And the man, Christ, is not only a creature separated from the Creator by the abyss of his creatureliness. He is the begotten Son of the Father, and his created nature is drawn into the eternal act of generation. This nature is indeed entirely the expression and property of his divine Person, so that everything that pertains to it is God’s word and seal. “What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the word of life . . .” In Christ, but in him only, and yet, through him, in all that he includes in his sphere of grace; in Christ, in the Church, in the world, which, in its entirety, he came to redeem, created being, with its inner tensions, is made to speak of eternal life. The inaccessible summit of “absolute being” thaws, and from it streams forth the water of a life that is infinite. This life chooses as its vessel the life of the creature who, through the grace of the incarnation, is made capable of containing it. The relativity which belongs to the essence of created life no longer points only momentarily to God, and then becomes powerless to show us the Absolute, On the contrary, in Christ the human is so completely subjected to the divine and made its vessel that it can be made a lasting expression of eternal life. Each word, movement, look and gesture of the Lord is a revelation of eternal life; but equally so is his suffering, his darkness, his dereliction, his descent into hell. All this is God making himself known to man. Everything in the created order, with the exception of sin, is enabled, through Christ, to be an expression of God, most of all what we would think to be most remote from him: the cross, opprobrium, anguish, death. And since the eternal life has made use of the whole range of the world’s tensions to reveal its still wider range, man for his part must not restrict himself to anything less in framing his idea of God. No longer may he conceive God as the transcendent apex of certain selected powers belonging to the creature; rather he must be capable now, for the first time, of really finding God in all things. In other words, he may not set aside all the potentialities of the creature so as to apprehend God as “pure act”, but must see them all as the vessel and expression of the eternal activity of the eternal life; he must envisage the absolute life of God as beyond what we are wont to distinguish in the world as “act” and “potentiality”. Through the Word of God, which is Christ, the whole world, in association with his taking flesh, begins itself to be God’s body and word. God remains, even in his revelation, incomprehensible, beyond all our conception; but the access to him we are granted is no longer, as in the theologia negativa, a banishment to what is alien, inaccessible, dark; it means our being flooded with light, excess of light. God is love, and we can know this love and live by it; but it is in itself beyond our comprehension, flowing out superabundantly, the object of our adoration. We plunge deeper into it, and it inundates us. The more we live by it, the more we are truly ourselves. It makes us humble, for besides being absolute glory, it is also absolute humility. In the abyss of divine love we are ever more profoundly united without confusion, for in God himself the three Persons celebrate, without confusion of being, the highest of unions.



It should now be clear how the Christian approach differs from the natural, and also in what sense it incorporates and completes the latter, instead of invalidating it. It does so not by some vague synthesis of nature and the supernatural—no synthesis of nature and God is possible—giving rise to some kind of third approach embodying the two. Ultimately there is only one synthesis in which God has established his relationship to the world, namely Christ, the incarnate Word of the Father. He is the measure of nearness and distance from God; he is the analogia entis in concrete form, he is the event that took place once and for all, and at the same time the norm for all that is in the world. He has truly descended, has taken man’s nature from an already existing humanity; but it is in virtue of this that he alone is the standard by which God finally assesses the merit of all that pertains to man. It is through this man that God looks on each individual and estimates his worth. God looks on him as the Head, and on the Church and the world as his body and bride. Nature, then, is perfected by being made the vessel and expression of the divine. It gives itself over to become this expression. It lets what is most ungodly in it be gathered in by God, whose pleasure it is to make what is alien his own, to make of the alogical the Logos, to be in the becoming Being, in death superabundant life. Humility can go no further, just as the Son is God in that he has the humility to wish nothing else than to be the Word and image of the Father. Nature, then, is perfected in that it consents to give up trying to understand itself by considering its own problems of being and obligation, of universality and particularity, and instead starts from the fact of the divine life, which it is not, but which it wills to live in and to make of it its exclusive dwelling. It is perfected in that it interprets itself not by taking account of what it has by inheritance and acquisition, but on the more fundamental basis of what has been divinely infused. In the sight of God, man is one whom Christ has redeemed, who has received from him the love that is God’s, and, in that love, loves his brethren. Whatever else man may be is subordinate to this definition. This is the idea of man in the mind of God, and to it the whole of nature is ordered as the seed to the flower. It cannot be said that nature is diminished by being held to serve as a vessel for the divine. What act of the human will could be more sublime than that of divine love? What could be more sublime for the human understanding than to elicit the act of divine faith? The whole problem of finite being, seen in this context, is resolved. The tension in finite being between what it is and what it ought to be is not eliminated; the movement is not brought to a halt, but starts out afresh from a new point and under new conditions, namely from the fact of the life divinely infused; and it makes use of this fact for its purposes. Neither are human modes of thinking and argument to be rejected as no longer necessary, for the Word of God has expressed itself in human words and concepts, and human speech and thought can be used by it further to bring out all its divine riches. The reflections of Paul and John show how legitimate such a procedure is—so legitimate, in fact, that in their case it forms part of revelation. The gold of the Egyptians was only of value when it came into the hands of the Israelites; and reason is only serviceable to faith when it takes on the form of faith. We cannot attempt to blend, in our premises, the truth of revelation and that of pure nature, and squeeze out thereby a hybrid conclusion. Everything must be drawn into the setting of faith; all natural premises must be taken in the sense of faith, and so made capable of wider application. At the same time, the content of faith will itself constantly come to include more than reason apprehends; and it is just when the logical process is correct that there is present in the conclusion something of the unknown mystery that was latent in one or both of the premises. The content of revelation is always infinite, and infinitely overflows the finite vessel into which it is poured, however authentic the vessel. For example, the identity of what is and what ought to be, which is the form of God and is yet present also in the background of the grace given, remains God’s and cannot be, as a fact finally accomplished, something of man. Though he knows himself to be a child of God, he must, on that account, strive no less hard with his human powers, not only with this identity as a starting point, but also as his aim, since it can always be intensified, always exceed present attainment. There are certain conclusions it is not permitted to him to draw from the fact of the identity accorded him. For example, he is not to rest content with the knowledge that grace is an infused gift, as though it did not also depend on him, or—a temptation often alluded to by Paul as extremely dangerous—sin, in order that grace may abound the more. Even were this true of grace, one may not do so. There are, then, certain limits drawn—in fact, many apply to beginners, but not to the “advanced”, “those fit for strong meat”—but this is not because the divine cannot insert itself in a human vessel, but because it is itself so human, and we bear the glory of God in earthen vessels. The divine gift of participation penetrates the inmost being of the creature, and so brings it to fulfillment together with all its strivings, which, without grace, would remain nugatory, since the creature’s perfecting depends not on its own potentialities, but on the power of God. The infusion of the divine identity does not involve any strain or distortion of the creature’s potential, for it takes place through God’s own condescension and abasement to the forms of creaturely nonidentity. Nor does participation in the divine uniqueness do violence to what is nameless, specific in the creature, since God himself, in Christ, is “Son of Man”, one man, that is, among all the rest; and further, because he himself stoops down, in the eucharistic species, to matter which is nameless and formless. Nor in the positive ordinances of the loving God does he oppress us with his love, but in his lowliness he always remains infinitely above us, in his nearness he is yet distant, though known he is still the Unknown to whom the Son, dying, called out in his darkness. Thus the forms and categories of philosophy and mysticism are not simply sundered; instead they have to be judged according to whether they convey the spirit of Christianity or some other spirit. Often the disparity is great and evident. Often it is slight, and then the Christian soul can only be known through a certain barely perceptible fragrance, as for instance that of the Areopagite in Neoplatonism. In the same way, the originality of a work of art cannot be perceived through the application of general rules, nor by some accidental quality, but by the impression it gives of complete inevitability with perfect freedom, overwhelming the beholder, and making him say: it could only have been thus. Hans Urs von Balthasar "Explorations in Theology, Vol. 1"




Ha, GoraneM?! Impresivno, jel? Sad vidiš kaj Hans Urs von Balthasar radi svojim sugorvornicima. I nakon ovih riječi, ti se usuđuješ uspoređivati joga bajke i kršćanstvo? To ni ne prešlo nekažnjeno. Ovde bi se pozvao na dva francuska filozofa: na Emmanuel Mouniera i A.G. Sertillangesa. Emmanuel Mounier na početku svojeg djela "Angažirana vjera" piše;

Ja sam intelektualac.


A A.G. Sertillanges u svome djelu "The Intellectual Life” piše;

The Intellectual Has a Sacred Call
The Intellectual Does Not Stand Alone
The Intellectual Belongs to His Time



Tako se ja osjaćam GoraneM. Bez prenamaganja, tako se ja osjećam. Osjećam se pozvanim da raskrinkavam tvoje bajke. Nije meni za ove bogatune kojima prodaješ maglu, meni je za ostalu bagru i sirotinju. Ža mi je ljudi. Meni namereš oči mazati. Devet godina sam ima kao sam počeo čitati Leszek Kołakowskog. Ti znaš tko je Leszek Kołakowski? Vjeruj mi, nećeš to znati.


If indeed metaphysics - that is the search for certainty and for the ultimate ground - is the expression of the experience of human fragility, if it is from this experience that comes the energy which ultimately keeps philosophy alive, this does not entail at all that metaphysical reflection is no more than an imaginary elixir invented to appease a real discomfort. It is quite conceivable that the specifically human infirmity consisting in the awareness of being infirm, endows us with a peculiar sensitivity which opens our mind to new avenues of exploration and enables us to express the distinction between contingent and necessary, between what is acceptable and what is certain, between relative and absolute, between finite and infinite. Leszek Kolakowski "Metaphysical Horror"

I to onda meni misliš prodati maglu. Lol. :roll:

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 26 stu 2014 09:07 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 09 tra 2009 20:57
Postovi: 2878
Podijelio: 5 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 61 zahvala
Citat:
Da, dokazao sam tocno ono sto sam i tvrdio: da se joga u zdravstvene svrhe primjenjuje u indiji sire

Tako je!!
Napuniš kadu sa 7 do 9 cm mlake vode, baciš sušenu kamilicu unutri, skineš gaće i sjedneš u položaj za jogu i kao jogiraš, i nakon 28 do 35 minuta hemeroidi splasnu!!
Dakle, poanta je da joga doista korisna u zdravstvene svrhe! :D :D

I sad ti Fran dokaži da nije, a evo ja dokazo da je!! Mogao me je GoranM zaposlit u svom đogistayl centru, primam plaču i u bonovima, samo da kaplje!! :roll:


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 26 stu 2014 15:51 
Odsutan
Registrirani korisnik
Registrirani korisnik

Pridružen: 24 kol 2014 02:05
Postovi: 80
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 0 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: nema
Status: U vezi
( spojih postove, ne vidim kako obrisati ovo... )


Zadnja izmjena: GoranM; 26 stu 2014 15:54; ukupno mijenjano 1 put/a.

Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 26 stu 2014 15:52 
Odsutan
Registrirani korisnik
Registrirani korisnik

Pridružen: 24 kol 2014 02:05
Postovi: 80
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 0 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: nema
Status: U vezi
hodocasnik napisao:
Datiranje zapisa nije starije makar se radilo samo o dijelovima Yogasutre, nego su ti dijelovi stariji od Kanona 300 godina. Ako govoriš o datiranju nastanka, onda kako za Pali kanon, tako i za Yogasutru vrijedi da je prvo dugo prenošena usmeno pa teko onda zapisivana. S tim da je kanon prenošen 500 godina od vremena Bude, a Yogasutra je udaljena nekih 200 godina. I onda kad pretpostaviš da je Patanjali preuzeo od budista ideje - to ostaju samo pretpostavke. Niko ne može sa sigurnošću utvrditi da je tako, posebno jer najstariji sačuvani Kanon je iz vremena 1000 godina nakon Bude, pri čemu su čak i komentari Yogasutre stariji od njega. Zbog toga akademska zajednica neće kao ti skočiti u zaključak da je Kanon ili sramana pokret izvor Yogasutre, nego će reći da postoji međuutjecaj ideja ali se ne može sa sigurnošću tvrditi koliko je tko preuzeo od koga. Posebno kad se uzme u obzir da o yogi postoji cijeli niz drugih hinduističkih izvora osim yogasutre koji su svi stariji od Kanona i za koje se također ne mora pretpostaviti da su usmeno prenošeni kao kanon čak 500 godina da bi bili stariji od vremena Bude. :)

Yoga sutra je komplilirana u 4.st , pali kanon zapisan prvi puta u 1. st Na sto mislis pod sacuvanim kanonom? Fizicki sacuvan nemamo, naravno, samo su pretpostavke da je isto izgledalo ili koliko se mijenjalo kada je prvi puta zapisano, ali isto vrijedi i za sve druge spise, pa vjerujem i yoga sutru, buduci je materijal koji se u indiji koristio za psanje jako propadnjiv pa je opcenito zanemarivo malo sacuvanih materijalnih tekstova iole starijeg datuma. Mozda si na nesto drugo mislio, neku specificnu kodifikaciju? Ne znam, ne poznajem dovoljno budizam pa ako mos pojasnit...

Nisam nigdje tvrdio da je kanon izvor jogasutre, stovise, eksplicitno sam rekao kako to sto napisah ne znaci da je sam budizam izvor icega, i on preuzima stvari od prije, a shraman tradicije ne nastaju iskljucivo sa budizmo, uostalom buda i sam spominje askete kojima se suprotstavlja (vjerojatno Jaini), a koji su vec postojali.

Shramana pokret jest, ali shramana pokret nije niti budisticki niti hindu niti jainski vec se srece u svima njima. Odnosno, ako bi analizirali moguce utjecaje na joga sutru najrealnije je pretpostavit da su sramanski najveci, a brahmanisticki sekundarni, odnosno vise slicnosti djeli sa slicnim budistickim tekstovima nego sto ima razlika specificnih za brahmanisticko nasljedje. Ono sto tvrdim jest da se ne moze reci kako je to hindusko jer dokle god uopce mozemo pratiti vidimo da postoji i u nehindu izvorima, da pretpostavljena datiranja nekih kompliranih djelova imamo starija cak u budizmu (i rajajogicki i tantrajogicki gledano), a sto je bilo prije njih i kako se razvijalo ne znamo tocno, no pretpostavlja se da je taj srhamana utjecaj autohtona indijska prica, a ne nesto sto je sa arijcima i vedama doneseno doseljavanjem. kako je to vedsko nasljedje ono sto definira hinduizam, a ono ne prenosi jogu dok joge ima u ovim drugima autohtono indijskim, a koji nisu vedizirani - onda ne mozemo niti jogu poistovjetiti sa hinduizmom (vec sa indijskim religijama u globalu, bile one astika ili nastika).

Nemamo izvora koji opisuju jogu, imamo samo usputna spominjanja joge, nekih natuknica, filozofskih teoretiziranja, apstraktnih referenci na kontemplativne prekase i tome slicno, to mogu biti neki pretpostavljeni prekusori joge, ali ne i stvarna sustavna praksa o kojoj ne mozemo nista sa sugurnoscu govoriti prije budista i prije joga sutre. Postoje neke pretpostavke i da su prekusori u civilizaciji doline inda (opet nesto nevdeski, nebrahmanisticki i nehinduski ako hinduizam positovjecujemo sa vedskim brahmanizmom), a sto bi bilo starije i od budizma i od vedskih kontemplativnih tekstova, no to je takvo nabadanje na osnovu par arheoloskih iskopina i prilicno slobodnog tumacenja da ne smatram dovoljno jasnim i nedvosmislenim da uopce uvodimo u raspravu.

Ne vidim sto se ima toliko komplicirati ako od tri postojeca stara izvora indijskih religija (brahmanizam, shramane, tantra (ukljucujuci sve autohtone predvedske nesramanicke tradicije pod pojam) + svi oni kasniji utjecaji (islam, krscanstvo, helenizam itd) jogu vidjamo svugdje gdje postoji utjecaj shramanizma i/ili tantre, ali ne vidjamo gdje postoji utjecaj brahmanizma bez ovo dvoje. Dakle u sramanistickim, sramono-tantrickim i brahmanisticko-sramano-tantrickim sferama utjecaja postoji joga, ali u cisto brahmanistickim, najstarijim vedskim bas i ne, to je ritualizirani paganski obredno-zrtveni sustav uostalom vjerojatno srodan staroslavenskom. Naravno da u joga sutri ima brahmanizma, da u upanisadama ima brahmanizma i u ostalim hindu-joguckim izvorima. Ali je "tehnicki sukus" kontemplativnosti ipak izvjesnije povezati sa nevedskim praksama, bez obzira sto hardkore hindu fundamentalisti (pa time i promotori joge) zele forsirati vedskost i vedsko nasljedje, posto im je potrebno za odrzavanje vlastite religijske mitologije.

hodocasnik napisao:
U MAhabharati se joga spominje, kažu, 900 puta. To zaobići i onda tvrditi da su sramane izvor joge, je pretvarati se slijep pored zdravih očiju.

Opet nevažno što je se Mahabharata datira u budistički period kad je nekoliko stotina godina starija od Kanona. Dakle, ako hoćeš zbilja biti nepristran, onda kad već Kanonu dopuštaš 500 godina prenošenja (iako je upitno koliko je ono što je na Paliju zapisano izvorno Budino učenje zbog prisutnih teističkih elemenata), onda i za epove moraš dopustiti barem dvije stotine godina usmenog prenošenja do vremena Bude. Naravno ako dopustiš više ond ispada da su stariji od Bude:)

I sam držim da MAhabharata nije sistematizacija, ali nisu niti samo natuknice kako ti kažeš, nego vjerojatno još temeljitija objašnjenja zbog prirode sutri (sutre po značenju riječu su natuknice) koje se ne mogu razumjeti bez vedante ili kasnijih komentara.. Cijelo poglavlej u Bhagavad giti je posvećeno Krishni kojeg hinduisti smatraju najvećim yogijem, i onda vi neki amateri hoćete yogu iz hinduizma brisati ili prikazati sramaskom ili neovisnom:) I ti se u upustiš u takvu rabotu da bi eto dokazao da su kršćanski apologete u krivu:)


Kada se kaze da je neki dio Mahabharate pretposavljen u to doba ne misli se da je tada zapisan (kao pali kanon u 1. st) pa da postoji neko usmjeno prenosenje prije toga, misli se upravo na vrijeme nastanka same price (ono sto je za pali pocetak usmenog prenpsenja), tu cak i nema neke konacne kodifikacije, postoje samo razlicite verzije iz razlicitih perioda kao i suvremene donekle prociscene znanstvene.. Generalno tu vrijedi pravilo da je ono sto se datira u neko vrijeme tada zaista i nastalo i to se pod nastankom podrazumjeva.

Te dve stvari je besmisleno usporedjivati, radi se o sasvim razlicitim vrstama tekstova i prenosenja. Pucki epovi i strukturirani vjerski tekstovi nisu bas isto. Ne smatra se da se u dobroj mjeri pali usmeno prenosio toliko godina jer postoji neki apstraktni princi 200, 300 ili 500 godina. Pretpostavlja se jer postoje razlozi da se pretpostavi. Jednako kao sto se za vede moze pretpostaviti zbog rigoroznosti doslovnog ucenja na pamet i doslovnog prenosenja, no epovi koji su pucka predaja su manje rigorozni i puno porozniji na vanjske uticaje. U epovima imas vrlo cesto recimo izmjesane dogadjaje za koje danas mozemo pretpostaviti da su se desili recimo 1000 g p.k. ali u kontekstu, drustvu, kulturi, dvorskim odnosima i etiketi, modi itd srednjega vijeka jer su vjerojatno stavljali stvari u kontekst koji je onome koji je pricao razumljiviji i bliskiji, odnosno kako bi oni zamisljali kraljeve, dvorove, vojske itd, samo je najosnovnija osnova dogadjaja ostala.

Struktura epova poput mahabharate je bitno kaoticnija, izmjesana i nasumicnija od tekstova poput vedskih, postoji mnogo razlicitih verzija istih prica, stilskih i strukturalnih odskakanja i tako dalje.

Opcenito se zbog te pucko-predajne strukture kod epova smatra da djelovi nisu nikada stariji od onoga na sto se izvanjski referiraju, odnosno da u pravilu nastaju kada nastaju i pojave koje opisuju jer pucki pripovjedaci u njih ubacuju sto u realnom vremenu svjedoce i tako nadogradjuju taj kaotican sustav koji nastaje u ogromnom rasponu godina.


Ukratko - 2-3.st.p.k. znaci da je tada to prvi puta uslo u pricu i nije se nista prije prenosilo.

Bhagavad Gita je takodjer kompilacija iz Shramana perioda.

Na sto mislis kada kazezes da je poglavlje u Giti posveceno Krishni? Cijela Mahabharata (unutar koje je Gita) je kompletno u velikoj mjeri posvecena Krishni (tj ima presudnu ulogu kroz radnju epa), a cijelu Gitu Krishna osobno izgovara (mitoloski i religjski gledano, naravno, nije to stvarno povijesno autorstvo).

Ne smatraju ga hindusi najvecim jogijem, kako koji. Vaishnave, posebno oni koji slijede Krishnu kao izvorni oblik Vishnua, tj Boga, svakako. Iako je i to upitno s obzirom da se radi o Bogu (kreatoru, odrzavatelju, svemu...) pa je upitno koliko se tako netko moze smatrati jogijem.

Shaive pak Shivu naravno smatraju uzvisenijim, a tako i drugi. Generalno je i u nekom opcenitom puckom Hindu imaginariju Shiva je puno vise arhetip jogija nego je to slucaj sa Krishnom, cesto ces ga uostalom vidjeti prikazanog kao jogja (u joga polozaju, editaciji isl), sto je sa Krishnom jako rijetko slucaj. Nadalje, daleko je vise (iako ne iskljucivo) sljedbi koje su blize jogickim pristupima duhovnoj praksi povezanih sa saivistickim nego vaisnavskim nasljedjem, cini mi se.

hodocasnik napisao:
Je li ti stvarno misliš da kršćanski apologete poput Rabi Maharaja koji je osim indijac i studirao komparativnu religioznost ili nešto tome slično, ili sami hinduisti, da oni ne bi znali ovo što ti pišeš da postoje skupine autohtonog brahmanizma, ili da ne znaju da postoji yoga u budizmu ili jainizmu (to sam čak i ja znao:), ili da današnji bhakti (iako Patanjali i bhakti svrstava u jedan od pravaca yoge) odbacuje yogu kao nepotrebnu? Ono stvarno, je li misliš da ti ljudi kojima je to struka i kulturno nasljeđe ne znaju sve to?

Dakle ne radi se ni o kakvom spinu niti o tome da si ti otkrio toplu vodu navodeći sve to, nego kada kršćanski apologete ili hinduisti kažu "Nema yoge bez hinduizma" onda se pozivaju na to da je yoga - bez obzira na izvorišta od domicilnog stanovništva - hinduizirana, i da ovo što danas imamo od yoge se ne može odijeliti od tih hinduističkih korijena. Sramane koliko god da su utjecale na razvoj, nisu ni uspjele ni htjele odvojiti yogu od hinduističkog dharmičkog nasljeđa - niti sam Buda nije uspijevao misliti izvan tog kruga ili ideja. Drugi dio izjave "Nema hinduizma bez yoge" - nitko ozbiljan ne opovrgava izuzecima ili dodatnim razvojem bhakti pravca, nego se, po riječima jednog Eliadea yoga može prepoznati da povratno daje pečat cijelom hinduizmu bez obzira na škole.

Ne znam sto znaju, a sto ne znaju, ne citam ljudima misli, samo vidim sto pisu.

Problem sa apologetima - a to vrijedi i za krscanske kada se suprotstavljaju hinduizmu i za hinduske kad napuhavaju vlastitu tradiciju - je da imaju vrlo jasan iracionalni cilj i poriv obrane necega sto je u osnovi vjera, a ne razum te onda u tome iznimno raste sklonost selektvnog i subjektivnog interpretiranja stvari, izbacivanja iz jednadzbi faktora koji ne idu u prilog, napuhavanja onih koji idu, krivljenja cijele slike - sve u nekakvom sofistickom nastojanju opravdavanja neceg sto je na kraju zelja za odrzavanjem vjerske mitoloske slike svijeta kada se sukobi sa stvarnoscu.

Tako da u startu kada je neko apologeta bilo cega treba njegovim argumentima pristupiti sa jako puno dodatnog opreza i zato niti krscanske aplogete, ali niti hinduske autore nikad ne smatram kvalitetnim primarnim izvorom informacija, ako mi nisu dali razloga da se u nekom pojedinacnom slucaju uvjerim u suprotno.

Ona je hinduizirana - u hinduizmu. Istovremeno egzistira i van njega. Dakle, ne moze se reci da nema joge bez hinduizma kada je fakticka cinjenica "na terenu" da je ima i da je ima ne u necemu sto se jucer odvojilo od hinduizma nego u necemu u cemu jogicko nasljedje mozemo pratiti unatrag u arhaicna vremena gdje stvari postaju vise i tesko razabirljive. Dakle da postoji joga bez hinduizma je jednostavno fakticka, neoboriva cinjenica.

Izvan kruga kojih ideja? Reinkarnacije, karme? Niti to nisu nuzno izvorno vedske ideje i kao i sa jogom izvor je zamagljen kao i to tko na koga u cemu koliko utjece. Ono sto pak sustinsi obiljezava upravo i iskljucivo brahmanisticko nasljedje (kaste, vede, zrtveni obredi itd) je nesto od cega se Buddha vrlo eksplicitno distancirao i osporavao.

Daje i paganizam prilican povratni pecat krscanstvu (osobito katolickom i pravoslavnom) pa ne znaci da nema krscnstva bez paganizma, moze se ici u ekstremni puritanizam pa i dalje ostaje krscanstvo jer ga to ne definira.

hodocasnik napisao:
Halo! gdje sam ja tvrdio da između yoge i hinduizma postoji znak jendakosti?? Joga je samo jedna od 6 hinduističkih škola ali njezine ideje su u većoj ili manjoj mjeri prihvaćene u drugim školama, i zato onaj citat od Eliadea koji podkrepljuje tezu "Nema hinduizma bez joge".

Također yoga prihvaća autoritet veda što je čini hinduističkom, a ove tvoje usporedbe stvarno postaju sve lošije.. Budisti ili jainisti ne prihvaćaju vede ali joga koju su prihvatili sa svim onim okultnim elementima je prvo postojala hinduizirana, pa iako oni drugačije tumače pojmove, tendencija i usmjerenje joge kao tehnike samooslobađanja je ostala ista.. Buda samo neće reći da je on postao bog, ali i dalje ga muči reinkarnacija, samsara i moksa odnosno nirvana itd... who cares :)

To je mozda preslobodna interpretacija onoga da nema hinduizma bez joge niti joge bez hinduizma, slazem se, nije nuzno bas jednakost.

Joga je jedna od tih kako se danas klasificiraju "6 skola" ali ne bih rekao da su njene ideje prihvacene u drugim skolama vec obratno. Joga nije uopce utujecajna kao filozofija, stovise, njen slabasni teorijski okvir se najcesce oslanja na jednu drugu od tih 6 skola (samkhyu) kada govorimo o toj tradicionalnoj jogi kao jednom od 6 sistema. Ako govorimo o suvremenom hinduizmu on je najcesce pod utjecajem nekakve pojednostavljene neovedante i u taj okvir ukljucuje i joga praksu.

Joga koja prihvaca vede je dio hinduizma, koja ne prihvaca to nije. nema nikakvog realnog historiografskog razloga da tvrdis kako su ju budisti izvukli iz hinduizma. Opet imputiras neki moderni hinduizam kakav je kao danasnja mjesavina svega i svacega u budino vrijeme. Reinkarnacije mislim da uopce nema u izvornoj (rg)vedi (samithi), ona i sama u hinduizam po nekim pretpostavkama moguce takodjer dolazi iz shramana, a ne vedskih izvora.

hodocasnik napisao:
koje čudno razmišljanje..

Zasto bi bilo cudno? Vjera nije stvar koju se moze dokazivati ili osporavati (odnosno stvar gdje bi osporavanje ili dokazivanje bilo nesto sa mogucnoscu definitivnog zakljucka), inace ne bi bila vjera. Stoga smatram da je potpuno bespredmentno raspravljati o tome je li joga zlo ili nije. A posebno je besmisleno meni raspravljati o tome je li joga neprihvatljiva za krscane posto je to vasa interna stvar i odluka.

Ali mi je kao nekome koga joga aktivno zanima bitno ako se usljed tih internih rasprava koje me se u osnovi po sebi ne ticu javno plasiraju dezinformacije koje bi me se vec mogle ticati. Pri tome ona je li joga hinduizam ili ne nije previse bitna jer nista ne mjenja u praksi na stvari niti vama niti meni, to je vise onako, intelektualna razbibriga kad smo se vec upetljali. Ali ona vjezba li se joga radi zdravlja u indiji ili ne, iako vama usputna primjedba, meni vec postaje necim relevantnijim i ne zelim da se takve lazi javno plasiraju i potom sistemom papige na gluhom telefonu dalje ponavljaju i sire.

Citat:
ovdje nismo o tome da raspravljamo o tvojim problemima,

Ali ipak to cinite vec poprilicno stranica i iz petnih zila zelite dokazati da je svaki zarez koji Blazevic stavi nuzno tocan, cak i kada je to prilicno nedokazivo i kada su mu greske prilicno ocite. Nije mi jasno zasto, zar vam je vjera tako slaba da ljuljanje "autoriteta" tako perifernog tipa na tako perifernom pitanju moze biti bas toliko bitno da se ne moze dozvoliti mogucnost (a rekoa bih i prilicno dobro dokazana izvjesnost) da ima i ponesto gresaka u svojim tvrdnjama?

Citat:
nego ako sluga koliko se sjećam, kaže da je joga neprihvatljiva za kršćane jer u jogi čovjek postaje bog, onda je to konkretan razlog i razlika između tih religija.

A ako ja dam referencu na indijske asketske skupine koje prakticiraju jogu, a nije im cilj postati Bog i vise se oslanjaju na milost I Boga nego na vlastiti asketski napor kroz jogu (svedulj ju prakticirajuci, bas kao sto i u krscanskim kontemplativnim redovima postoje asketske prakse) onda znaci da sluga nije sasvim u pravu. Znaci da neki od hindu pravaca to smatraju, ali ne svi, sto onda znaci da to nije razlika izmedju tih religija nego izmedju katolicanstva (kao teoloski homogene religije) i nekih pravaca unutar hinduizma (kao teoloski nehomogene religije).

iako je i to da covjek postaje Bog malo nategnuto, prije bi se moglo reci kod sljedbenika advaite da covjek gubi iluziju individualnog postojanja jer da u stvari van Boga nicega nikada nije niti bilo.

Citat:
Ne moraš raspravljati o tome ali to jeono o čemu ovi ljudi uglavnom su raspravljali.. nisam se uspio natjerati da pročitam više od dvije-tri stranice rasprave na temi od kada si se ti pojavio, ali koliko sam vidio ti samo piliš o povijesnosti, a ta povijesnost ovdje nikog ne zanima.

A zasto se onda stalno kacite na raspravu? Pa ne pisem "iz vedra neba", sve sto ikada napisah na temi je komentar na necije izjave - a koje se ticu tih povijesnih i inih "tehnickih" aspekata.

Citat:
Pri tome valja primjetiti da je tvoje navođenje povijesnosti toliko iskrivljeno, da na žalost ne mogu izbjeći dojam da svjesno i namjerno lažeš.. ali dobro, nismo tu da raspravljamo o tvojim problemima:)

Ma jok, nisam ti ja niciji apologeta da bih imao razloga namjerno iskrivljavat, mogu samo bit u zabludi i skroz krivo pokopcavat stvari :D

hodocasnik napisao:
- šta se oformilo kao religija nakon pto je on počeo egzistirati? Hinduizam? Jesi li zbilja toliko samouvjeren da misliš kako drugi ne znaju za ta datiranja? Prvo, formativni dio hinduizma počinje stoljećima prije Bude. ZAtim, pored svih razlika brahmanizam se često naziva prvotnim hinduizmom kako sam već pisao.

Ne znam sta tko zna, a sto ne zna, opet, znam samo sto se pise. Po raspravi ovdje zakljucujem da vecina ne zna, a da kako rasprav traje ti trazis izvore pa si sve informiraniji jer ti se i argumentacija po malo mjenja, no svedulj pokusavajuci nategnuti da bi se prvotna pozicija nekako uspjela zadrzat :p

Da, ali treba biti jasna ta razlika. Jer ih stalno mjesas pa recimo neke stvari koje su "sustina" danasnjeg hinduizma poput reinkarnacije "podvaljujes" pod brahmanizam sto bas i nije nuzno tocno. Onda na osnovi te "podvale" pokusavas dokazati kako je i shramana/budizam u stvari hinduisticki jer raspravlja o reinkarnaciji, a u stvari je vrlo moguce da je i sama ideja reinkarnacije u hinduizam dosla od shramana (ili odakle vec) i da je uopce nema u najranijem vedskom "hiinduizmu".

Citat:
Pišeš:
"Razlike i slicnosti u terminima nisu trolanje nego bit stvari. Ne mozes ligvisticko postajanje nekog izraza, a koji znaci nesto sasvim peto, samo zato sto se spominje smatrati izvorom religijske ideje. Ideje se prenose jezikom i jezik je samo sredstvo."

Razlike u terminima su trolanje i nevažne baš zato što postoji osnovni izvorni lingvistički izraz koji je začetak ideje, a što je ta ideja kasnije evoluirala u nešto peto opet ne znači da je postala nešto sasvim različito. Dakle jezik je sredstvo prenošenja ideje i to je bit, a ne kasnije varijacije. Što tebe uz ovaj pokušaj čini ono baš - trolerom :)

Osnovni lingvisticki korjen uopce ne mora ukazivati na to kako se ideja danas koristi jer je veza medju njima u velikoj mjeri apstraktno-simbolicki-asicijativna.

Recimo mogao bi netko nadobudan tvrditi da je grcka kurtizana koja se mazala uljem davno prije nastanka krscanstva u stvari dokaz kako su krscani vec postojali i bavili se prostitucijom. Jer rijec krscanin (Krist je grcki prevod mesije sa korjenom u chiro, mazati uljem, sto je bio oblik potvrde drustvenih funkcija u mnogim istocnim kulturama, pa tako i mesije valjda). I ja sam danas primio pricest. Naime ako sam bacio kobasu na ulje to je mesija, dakle "tijelo"... : :twisted:

Ne mogu tako nasumicno i odokativno zloupotrebljavati lingvisticki "dokazi"

Citat:
Pišeš:
"Greska koju cesto Blazevic & co rade jest da poistojecuju shramanistizirani i tantrizirani dio hinduizma (ili hinduizirani dio shramanizma i tantre) sa cjelokupnoscu hinudizma i joge."

Tvoja pretpostavka da poistovjećuju kao što i do sada si puno toga njima pripisao a onda to napadaš.. jeftina eristika, ali evo.. tu bi kontinjuud :)

Sve sto sam napao sam konkretizirao kako u njihovim izjavama, tako i u odgovorima na njih :)

S druge strane vidimo da si mi pripisao stvari koje ne da nisam tvrdio, nego sam eksplicitno tvrdio bas suprotno (kao da je joga preuzeta iz budizma), gdje pripisujes reinkarnaciju vedskom brahmanizmu da bi povezao shramanizam sa njime (iako to uopce nije izvjesno), preskacuci da sam u postovima na koje odgovaras vec to i napisao (sve i da ti je promaklo u guglanjima teme) da ti pojmovi i ideje i sami nisu bas nuzno vedski te ima dosta i u njima sramanistickih uticaja... ;)


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 26 stu 2014 16:07 
Odsutan
Registrirani korisnik
Registrirani korisnik

Pridružen: 24 kol 2014 02:05
Postovi: 80
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 0 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: nema
Status: U vezi
Samuel napisao:
Citat:
Da, dokazao sam tocno ono sto sam i tvrdio: da se joga u zdravstvene svrhe primjenjuje u indiji sire

Tako je!!
Napuniš kadu sa 7 do 9 cm mlake vode, baciš sušenu kamilicu unutri, skineš gaće i sjedneš u položaj za jogu i kao jogiraš, i nakon 28 do 35 minuta hemeroidi splasnu!!
Dakle, poanta je da joga doista korisna u zdravstvene svrhe! :D :D

I sad ti Fran dokaži da nije, a evo ja dokazo da je!! Mogao me je GoranM zaposlit u svom đogistayl centru, primam plaču i u bonovima, samo da kaplje!! :roll:


Opet ja u kope, vi u spade :lol:

Nisam tvrdio da joga jest korisna za zdravlje. naravno, mislim da jest i mogla bi se tu imati rasprava i sa nekim suvislim znanstvenim istrazivanjima, no nije mi namjera u to ulaziti, ne mislim da je to ovdje tema, a ne mislim niti da su sve tvrdnje o njenoj zdravstvenoj ucinkovitosti bas tocne, pa cak niti neka znanstvna istrazivanja. Ima tu i metodoloskih manjkavosti i napuhavanja i svega, uz svu korist koju mislim da ipak moze imati.

No ono sto sam tvrdio i sto je neosporiva cinjenica svakome tiko se malo potrudi isto istraziti jest da se zdravstveno orjenitirana joga u Indiji prakticira u vecim razmjerima nego na zapadu, duze vrijeme, na visim institucionalnim razinama i tako dalje. To su cinjenice. Da postoje drzavne institucije, akademske institucije, odjeli u ministarstvu, znanstvena istrazivanja, provodjenje terapija kako u specializiranim institutima tako i u nekim bolnicama itd. Primjenjuje se ne samo modernisticki iz nekakvog znanstveno-medicinskog aspketa nego i u sklopu tradicionalne ayurvedske medicine, gotovo redovno ce ajurvedski lijecnici preporucati i neke vjezbe joge za neke zdravstvene probleme uz ostalu preporucenu terapiju.

Dakle novisno o tome je li ucinkovito ili nije, cinjenica jest da u indiji postoji obimnije i duze nego na zapadu i da nije tocna Blazeviceva tvrdnja kako se iz zdravstvenih razloga tamo ne prakticira.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 26 stu 2014 16:56 
Odsutan
Registrirani korisnik
Registrirani korisnik

Pridružen: 24 kol 2014 02:05
Postovi: 80
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 0 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: nema
Status: U vezi
Fran26 napisao:
Pa de onda dokaži tu činjeničnu egzistenciju određenih konkretnih institucija kojima ti sajtovi pripadaju ili ih opisuju.

dokazi ti meni cinjenicnu egzistenciju tebe, ovog foruma, joge, krscanstva, drzave indije, indijske vlade, ministarstva, drzave hrvatske, Blazevica, crkve i Galapagosa... dokazi da to sve nije nekakva projekcija u mojoj glavi, san, matriks ili slicno solipsisticko spadalo? :D

Vrlo je providno ovakvo sofisticko izvlacenje na selektivnoj bazi gdje koristis maksimum relativizacije za odredjeni element u raspravi koji ti ne odgovara, dok svi ostali elementi koji se jednako mogu relativizirati bivaju nekriticki prohvaceni.

Dakle ako odbacujes posredne dokaze postojanja svega sto sam gore naveo onda mozes i tih institucija, ali onda nemamo o cemu raspravljati jer ne samo da nema tih institucija nego nema niti nas niti indije niti hrvatske niti krscanstva niti hinduizma, nista nema nikakve uhvatljive osnove.

Ako ak prihvacas da sve to postoji onda moreas na istim osnovama i u istom kontekstu prihvatiti i egzistenciju indijske drzave, vlade, njenih stranica pa i onih koje dokazuju egzistenciju institucija o kojima je rijec.

Citat:
Gde? Gde si to dokazao? Možeš ovde stavit te dokaze da ih vidimo?

Puno puta, na puno mjesta. Ali slijapac nista ne vidi, sofista ne priznaje da je vidio... ili kako bi tvoji rekli "tko ima oci neka vidi..." :D ne mislim ulaziti u ovakva sofisticka prenemaganja :)

Citat:
A ja bi baš to volio, da ulaziš u teološke rasprave, a ne da se baviš babljim pričama.

Meni su uopravo teoloske rasprave bablje price. Ako se nesto ne moze konkretizirat nema svrhe o tome niti raspravljat. Ajd, neke stvari poput sustinskog teizma se jos tamo od skolastika i islamskih im "aristotelijanskih" prethodnika jos i mogu filozofski/logcki suvislo dokazivati, ali sve religijske partikularnosti (a kamoli stavovi prema jogi) nakon toga se sve vise uoetljavaju u sofisticka izvrdavanja vrlo jednostavnog "vjerujem-nevjerujem" i rasprave gube smisao (o gubitku vremena da ne govorimo).

Citat:
Ili, treća opcija: te linkove je napisao N.N. A sve šta N.N. piše nije baš nešta za čime bi se moglo povodit, jel?

Ti linkovi su sa sluzbenih stranica kako institucije kojom predsjedava i koju odi Blazevic tako i sluzbenih indijskih institucija (drzavnh agencija, sveucilista itd). Ako ces sve relativizirati kako rekoh u orvom postu moras ici do kraja pa relativizirati kompletnu poznatu egzistenciju i kompletan okvir unutar kojega raspravljamo, ne mozes prihvatiti nekriticki sve sto dolazi iz izvora koji ti odgovaraju (crkva, skola, prihvatljivi sajtovi itd), a osporavati samu egzistenciju onoga sto ne odgovara.

Citat:
Znači, vi ste ko protestanti. Ima vas 40 000 i svaki "dere" po svome. U narodu bi se reklo: što se babi htilo, to se babi snilo. Da mi objasni jednu stvar: kako da ja znam da si baš ti GoranM pravi jogičar? Kako da znam da baš ti širiš ono šta su Sai Baba, Šiva, i ostali 77 998 hundu bogova zapisali? Jer i 39 999 jogičar tvrdi baš to isto šta i ti tvrdiš, i oni tvrde da govore istinu o tim hundu štorijama.

Nismo mi jer nisam hindus.
Da, njih je gomila i svaki dere po svome. Nije usporedivo sa protestantima jer nije bilo jedinstvenog pocetka (doduse i u krscanstvu je bilo sarolikosti i na samim pocecima, samo efikasnije gusenih, pa je i to upitna usporedba). Mozda mozes usporediti sa zidovima donekle. U stvari vecina religija nema tako snaznu unificirnu i institucionaliziranu strukturu poput RKC sto je vjerojatno uslijed koliko religijskih toliko i socio-politickih povijesnih razloga. Zatim, misionarske religije poput Islama, Krscanstva ili Budizma imaju snaznu ekspanziju iz jedne tocke u veliku sirinu po svijetu dok "autohtone" religije poput zidovske ili hinduizma nastaju sakupljanjem utjecaja kroz veliki niz godina, izvori su im sarolikiji, cesto se gube u arhaicnoj proslosti itd.

Nikako, nije uopce bitno jesam li ja ista, ako sam u pravu u onome sto govorim u pravu sam bio jogicar ili ne, ako sam u krivu u krivu sam, ne ovisi o tome kakav sam jogicar ista vise nego li ovisi o tome kojom rukom perem zube. Istina koja bi ovisilia o tome tko ju izgovara ne bi to niti bila.

Sto se Saibabe tice on nije jogicar jednostavno zbog toga sto se jogom nije bavio. Nitko ga nikada nije vidio da se njome bavi, u njegovim ucenjima i organizaiji nije bilo sustavne prakse (ako se netko bavio jogom to je na svoju ruku) itd. Ako se negdje skrivecki necime bavio mi to ne znamo. isto tako nije poznato da je ikada imao ikakvog gurua i da ga je itko zaredio formalno te da pripada bilo kojoj tradicionalnoj hindu sljedbi (nema nigdje u njegovim govorima, u sluzbenim biografijama, u pricama ljudi iz njegovog sela itd). Opet, ako je nesto bilo u tajnosti mi to ne znamo.

Hindus sigurno jest, prosao je sigurno kroz zivot uobicajene osnovne drustveno-religiozne obrede prosjecnog hindu djeteta. Guru - ovisno kako se shvaca. Nije davao dikshu ili druge formalne inicijacije, dakle nije formalni guru u smislu odrzavanja specificnog duhovnog lanca nasljedjivanja. Neformalni guru u smislu duhovnog ucitelja kao takvog je svakako bio. Jpgi po svemu sto mozemo iz navedenog vidjeti nije bio.

Svatko tko se bavi jogom mozemo pak reci da je jogicar. A "pravi i nepravi" su subjektivne kategorije i stoga besmislene. No to sto se netko bavi ili ne bavi jogom ili se pravo ili krivo bavi nema veze sa istinitoscu ili neistinitoscu njegovih tvrdnji. Netko moze biti svetac, mistik i cak dobar teolog pa da je (mozda i u skladu sa ogranicenim informacijama njegova vremena) izvalio niz besmislica.. pa recimo raspravljao oko toga treba li pokrsstavati trookoa cudovista za koja se sigurno zna da zive tamo u dalekim zemljama nakon europe... Biti nesto u sklopu vlastitog vjerskog sustava ne znaci nista po objektivnost bilo koje tvrdnje - naravno u mjeri u kojoj se ona uopce moze objektivno vrednovati.

Citat:
Dakle, nisam pogrešio kad sam gore napisao: što se babi htilo, to se babi snilo.

Da, u osnovi je uvijek tako. Samo neke babe imaju muda samostalno preuzeti odgovornost za svoj zivot i ne malipulirati pri tome drugima, neke pak zele slijediti autoritete u strahu od samoce samostalnosti, a neke zele biti autoritetima i sakupljati sljedbenike. Neke od tih skupjna se onda jace ili slabije na nekom podrucju instaliraju. U indiji smo imali takvu situaciju da se, iako je bilo razlicitih promjena kroz povijest (pa je budizam jedno vrijeme dosta stisnuo hinduizam, barem medju elitnijim slojevima, da bi ga kasnije reformirani suvremeni hinduizam prakticki izbrisao... pa onda unutarnji sukobi unutar njih takodjer itd), mozda se moglo desiti da jedna struja tolko ojaca da slizana sa politickom dominacijom nametne svoje dovoljno opsirno i dugo, al eto nije pa je ostalo dosta pluralizma. Mozda je vezano i uz polticka kretanja i podjele, nedostatak infrastrukture da se nesto dovoljno snazno nametne... vjerojatno bi i sa europom bilo teze postici religijsku unifikaciju da nije bilo rimskog carstva i jegovog nasljedja... makar, opet i te sto bi bilo kad bi bilo i zasto jes sto jest nisu neke odvec smislene rasprave :D

Citat:
Dokaži da Sai Baba nije pravi Swami (redovnik). Meni je on baš izgledao kao pravi Swami. Lol. Slika

Pa ako ja obucem svecenicku halju izgledati cu kao pravi svecenik, ali ne znaci da cu to i biti bez primanja sakramenta i polaganja zavjeta, zar ne? Isto je sa sannyasom. Nije poznato da je Baba ikada tako nesto formalno primio, ili barem meni nije. Moguce da je u tajnosti, ali s obzirom koliko je varao i muljao prije bih pretpostavio da je jednostavno navukao haljinu radi marketinskog potencijala koji nosi :D Ali moguce da grijesim, svakako, na kraju nije to ni nesto previse bitno, moze covjek biti vjerodostojan laik i prevarant sa pravim zaredjenjem :)

Citat:
A šta kaže povijest?

U vezi?

Citat:
A zašto ne bi o tome razgovarali?

Pa razgovaraj si sa onima kojima je zanimljivo, meni trenutno nije pa necu :lol:


Citat:
Na tim stranicama piše da postoji, sad, dal ona stvarno postoji, to je već drugo pitanje. Na službenim stranicama ruske i kineske vlade piše da poštuju ljudska prava, na stranicama vlade Republike Hrvatske piše da će BDP rasti 1.4%, na službenim stranicama američke vlade piše da nisu prisluškivali vlastite građane i europske lidere, na stranicama republike srpske piše: ustaše napale srbiju. Razumiš na šta ciljam? Na službenim stranicama piše svašta, a jel to tako? To je već drugo pitanje.

Shvacam, ali sad opet idemo u selektivno rastakanje. A ako je neselektivno mozemo ga gurnuti do apsurdnih granica unistavanja svake mogucnosti diskusije. STo je ok ako se bavimo temeljnim filozofskim pitanjima, ali nije ok ako se bavimo ovakvim partikularnim jer onda, posebno kada se selektivno primjenjuje, sluzi samo sofistickoj pseudoargumentaciji i destabilizaciji dialoga. Zato se uostalom solipsisticki argumenti u filozofiji bas i ne primjenjuju u sferama koje se ne bave tim specificnim pitanjima posto bi dokinulo svaku mogucnost rasprave o konkretnim temama i odvelo u pasurd.

Da, moguce je da sluzbene stranice lazu. Moguce je i da Blazevic laze i da u krajnjoj liniji Biblija laze. Ako cemo zaista primjenjivati takvu dekonstrukciju mozemo uvijek doci samo do nekakvih jedinih utvrdivih pojava vlastitih iskustava percipiranog dok apsolutno sve percipirano mozemo kao takvo dovesti u pitanje, odnosno objektivnost istog. Stranice sluzbenih institucija su najbolji dokaz koji mozes na internetu dobiti. Jaci nije moguc o nasim domenama i kontekstima rasprave i nema jaceg niti sa drugih strana. Ja jaci imam utoliko sto sam ih u zivo vidio, sudjelovao na konfama i slicno, a tvoje je hoces li mi vjerovati. jaci za tebe bi mogao biti da sam odes i provjeris, no to ne zelis, prema tome daljnja rasprava je prilicno besplodna vrtnja u krug sa malo previse sofistickog izvrdavanja za moj ukus :)

Citat:
Tako dugo dok moja noga ne stupi u njihove ustanove, i tako dugo dok moje oko ne vidi te ustanove- ne, nipošto neću vjerovati!

To je tvoje pravo. No istovremeno ne zelis nogom stupiti u njihove ustanove. So je takodjer tvoje pravo, no onda vise nemas sto doprinjeti temi jer te ne zadovoljava nikakav dostupan dokaz, a ne zelis se potruditi doci do jace potvrde.

S druge strane ako primjenjujes tako snazne kriterije budi dosljedan pa prestani odlaziti i u crkvu jer nit si vidio Isusa, nit si vidio ikoga tko je vidio ikoga tko je vidio ikoga tko je vidio Isusa. A religija je po svojoj prirodi na daleko labavijim i neprovjerljivijim nogama od nekakve sluzbene vladine agencije koju se de facto i moze posjetit, ako se zeli :D

Citat:
S obzirom na to šta sve svijetske vlade pišu na svojim stranicama, taj dokaz mi izgleda veoma slabašan.

Vlade lazu uglavnom oko stvari koje su od specificnog interesa, a takve lazi se prije ili kasnije cesto i razotkriju. Moze napisati da je ocekivani BDP ovakav ili onakav, ali za godinu dana ce se vidjeti kakav je, postoji niz banaka, medjunarodnih agencija isl sa svojim projekcijama i izracunima...

Ovo je pak jedno prakticno upravno tjelo, nije neki faktor bilo u medjunarodnim bilu u unutarnjim politickim odnosima, egzistira dovoljno godina te postoji prava hrpa aktivnosti u kojima sudjeluje. razmjeri medjunarodne i unutarindijske zavjere koja bi time obuhvacala citav niz drzavnih, akademskih i privatnih institucija bi bila tesko odrziva i da iza nje stoji zajednicko organizirano djelovanje najjacih americkih, ruskih i kineskih sluzbi, kamoli indijska ciganija :b101:

No znas ti to sve i sam, nemojmo se pravit da iznosis ozbiljno misljenje, a ne sofisticke spinove ;)


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 28 stu 2014 20:42 
Odsutan
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Korisnik s preko 1000 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 10 lip 2008 20:55
Postovi: 3731
Lokacija: Santa Fe (New Mexico)
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 49 zahvala
GoranM napisao:
... ... ...

Ideš malo na "hlađenje" GoraneM, baš kao i tvoj jogi prijatelj Hodocasnik. Lol. Slika Šta kažete na to? Kad malo bolje pogledam, neće to biti baš malo hlađenje, bit će to malo dulje hlađenje, barem što se tebe tiče GoraneM. Tvoj jogi prijatelj će ipak proći bolje od tebe. Dakle;


GoranM: ignoriraj lista od 28.11.2014. do 28.3.2015.
Hodocasnik: ignoriraj lista od 28.11.2014. do 28.1.2015.



Izgleda da si ove blagdane nećemo čestitiati. Slika

_________________
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, wo wo wo.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 12 pro 2014 08:54 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 05 tra 2013 15:41
Postovi: 819
Lokacija: Sljeme
Podijelio: 0 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 10 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: Catholicus
Status: U braku
Bas ste smjesni vas dvoje napornih
Tko ste vi?
odakle vam snaga toliko dosadjivati sa jogom(citaj zmija)

previse vjezbe i klanjanja pred kumirom?
Ne ispuniste kvotu?
:a1163:

_________________
Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
 Naslov: Re: Joga
PostPostano: 12 pro 2014 12:25 
Odsutan
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Korisnik s više od 100 postova
Avatar korisnika

Pridružen: 01 ruj 2012 14:15
Postovi: 687
Podijelio: 5 zahvala
Zahvaljeno je: 34 zahvala
Vjeroispovjest: katolik
Status: U braku
Peltrasius napisao:
Bas ste smjesni vas dvoje napornih
Tko ste vi?
odakle vam snaga toliko dosadjivati sa jogom(citaj zmija)

previse vjezbe i klanjanja pred kumirom?
Ne ispuniste kvotu?
:a1163:


Ej pa vidi ti ovo. Razmetni sin se vratio. Nije ga bilo godinu dana.
:lol:
Si živ čovječe?

_________________
Čak i kad te netko posrami jer misli da ima puno pravo na to, glavu i koljena sagni jedino pred Božjom veličinom, nikad pred ljudskom.


Vrh
 Profil  
Citiraj  
Prikaz prethodnih postova:  Sortiraj po  
Započni novu temu Odgovori  [ 399 post(ov)a ]  Idi na stranu Prethodni  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Sljedeće

Vrijeme na UTC [LJV]


Tko je online

Nema registriranih korisnika pregledava forum i 1 gost


Ne možeš započinjati nove teme.
Ne možeš odgovarati na postove.
Ne možeš uređivati svoje postove.
Ne možeš izbrisati svoje postove.
Ne možeš postati privitke.

Traži prema:
Idi na:  
Pokreće phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpbb.com.hr