The redneck strike again.

[Confused Ape]

It would be nice to progress without spend hours and hours in meditation or doing exercised or any other yoga practice just by psychology.
I call this effort spirituality and by this effort your mind becomes apexed, pinnacled so you can say that it is psychology as the psyche get apexed, pinnacled but again this is due to spiritual effort not by mental effort.

Yes, you've finally got what I've been on about. Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One or other technique has to be used in order to develop the spiritual aspect. Transpersonal psychology is also dealing with the spiritual. Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One or other technique has to be used in order to develop the spiritual aspect.

The difference between you and me is that you believe that the Ananda Marga concept of God is real. I regard it as not proved but, on the other hand, it hasn't been conclusively disproved, either. The way I see it, though, is that God being everything is a symbol so it doesn't matter whether God, as such, actually exists or not. What is true is that humans and other living things are parts of the universe, not separate from it. This is why I'm something of a Deep Ecology person.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent of their utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use. It describes itself as "deep" because it regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than that of the prevailing view of ecology as a branch of biology. The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes) since Deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a more holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.

There's more to it than philosophy.

Spiritual

Coming to an awareness of this reality involves a transformation of an outlook that presupposes humanity's superiority over the natural world. This self-realisation or "re-earthing"[11] is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realize ourselves. Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea.

Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One has to actively seek that intuitive ecocentric perspective. The result is a subjective experience, though, and the only thing that I can be certain of is that my brain is involved in producing it.

In my previous posts i said few times that yoga include many things not just doing meditation.
Why you think i discussed for so long about whether man is omnivore or not if i wouldn't include vegetarianism in my life?
And then i talk about microvita and alternative medicine and other different topics?
I just don't understand what you are on about Ape.

The problem is that it's very difficult to know what you are on about when your posts tend to come across as mysterious utterances peppered with emoticons. I agree with you about the various theories of psychology being maps and one has to actually travel to get anywhere. All your mysterious utterances and gave the impression that you think people should travel their paths without paying attention to the maps and signposts because they are just mental things and, therefore, irrelevant.

You are presuming that i don't care about suffering just because i said that there is the karma law to take into account.
Why you keep on rushing in your judgments is just behind me.

You didn't clearly say that you care about suffering - I'm not telepathic so I can only go by what you put in your posts. It would have made a world of difference if you'd thought to explain what love and compassion for all creation and service is about and how you try to apply it in your own life.

Again you are presuming things.
If i see anyone down in the gutter the first thing that come in my mind is to help even if i know that that is due to his-her karma but you presume that i am not interested in helping just because that person did something wrong therefore shouldn't be helped.

You never thought to clearly explain that the first thing that comes to your mind is to help. Without that explanation you gave the impression that all you cared about was people's karma.

When i start talking to anyone the talk often go from topic to topic.
To stick to the same argument for long get boring so i let the argument take me wherever it like it to go.
If i never talk about what you mention is just due to the fact that the flow of the argument never end up there.

Some of the discussion has involved ecology so I'm surprised that you didn't mention that Ananda Marga has an ecology section. Other topics which have turned up relate to economics and consumerism etc. so you could have mentioned PROUT as suggesting an alternative to our current system.

As far as i can remember i always explain that the goal of life can not possibly be in this material-physical world but in the spiritual one.
And i also said that to think in this way is the correct way to think as spirituality offer the only solution to human problem.
Now you please explain what is wrong with attain spiritual progress?

There's nothing wrong with attaining spiritual progress whatever it really is. You might well have said that spirituality offers the only solution to human problems in passing but it got lost somewhere in all the and mysterious utterances. A few lines explaining how it's supposed to be the solution would have ensured that it didn't get overlooked.

Very well but please leave behind your emotions and your rush judgment.

I have to admit to getting exasperated by the way you word your posts. Trying to figure out what you're on about is very hard work and I don't always succeed.

[Little Rik]

Again, it has nothing to do with contradiction.

oxymoron, n.
1. Rhetoric. A figure of speech in which a pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms are placed in conjunction for emphasis.

Is the word "atheism" a pair of terms? No it is not. It's one word. Therefore it's not an oxymoron.

In reality there are two.......opposed or markedly contradictory terms......that are......... placed in conjunction for emphasis.
On one side we got the guy who say that God does not exist, on the other side there is the reality that God exist for the reasons that i already said so the contradiction is there.

oxymoron, n.
2. (general) A contradiction in terms.

contradiction in terms
1. A phrase or expression in which the component words contradict one another, often unintentionally, or are claimed to do so when seen from a particular point of view.
"A miniature giant" is a contradiction in terms.

The contradiction is absolutely there because the guy who said that God does not exist is contradicted by the reality that God is there.

Note again that an oxymoron requires words, plural. A single word contradicting itself is not an oxymoron.

Wrong again yogini.
The guy who say that God does not exist refer to the idea that something outside his existence is not there when in fact is there so the contradiction is external not internal therefore there is NO singularity.

---

Yes, you've finally got what I've been on about. Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One or other technique has to be used in order to develop the spiritual aspect. Transpersonal psychology is also dealing with the spiritual. Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One or other technique has to be used in order to develop the spiritual aspect.

To me everything boil down to the fact that without spirituality there can not be any progress so the word psychology is only a way to express how the progress go nothing else really.

The difference between you and me is that you believe that the Ananda Marga concept of God is real. I regard it as not proved but, on the other hand, it hasn't been conclusively disproved, either. The way I see it, though, is that God being everything is a symbol so it doesn't matter whether God, as such, actually exists or not. What is true is that humans and other living things are parts of the universe, not separate from it. This is why I'm something of a Deep Ecology person.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent of their utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use. It describes itself as "deep" because it regards itself as looking more deeply into the actual reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than that of the prevailing view of ecology as a branch of biology. The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes) since Deep ecology is grounded in a quite different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a more holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.

Taking care of the world in which we are living and of all his creatures is already something very important but it is also very important to take care of our spiritual progress so a balance between the two is the best.
A.M. symbol is the best explanation of this concept.

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/sy...pratik.htm

There's more to it than philosophy.
Spiritual

Coming to an awareness of this reality involves a transformation of an outlook that presupposes humanity's superiority over the natural world. This self-realisation or "re-earthing"[11] is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realize ourselves. Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea.

Just reading about it isn't enough, of course. One has to actively seek that intuitive ecocentric perspective. The result is a subjective experience, though, and the only thing that I can be certain of is that my brain is involved in producing it.

Your brain can not possibly produce anything.
It is like to say that the car that you use to go from point A to point B produce something.
It is you that direct your brain to act so with the help of your brain you are capable of getting somewhere.

The problem is that it's very difficult to know what you are on about when your posts tend to come across as mysterious utterances peppered with emoticons. I agree with you about the various theories of psychology being maps and one has to actually travel to get anywhere. All your mysterious utterances and gave the impression that you think people should travel their paths without paying attention to the maps and signposts because they are just mental things and, therefore, irrelevant

The mind is like a mad monkey that has got to get under control otherwise you get lost in an ocean of things that are not of any help.
When people give so much importance to the mind and not to the fact that is not the mind what generate the real progress then i don't really believe them and give importance to what they say.
Just a waste of time.

You didn't clearly say that you care about suffering - I'm not telepathic so I can only go by what you put in your posts. It would have made a world of difference if you'd thought to explain what love and compassion for all creation and service is about and how you try to apply it in your own life.

When i don't know what people think at i tend not to judge them.

You never thought to clearly explain that the first thing that comes to your mind is to help. Without that explanation you gave the impression that all you cared about was people's karma.

Again before i judge i tend to know the whole not just 10% of them.

Some of the discussion has involved ecology so I'm surprised that you didn't mention that Ananda Marga has an ecology section. Other topics which have turned up relate to economics and consumerism etc. so you could have mentioned PROUT as suggesting an alternative to our current system.

I talk about Prout ages ago in different threads but as i realized that people were not interested at then i stopped mentioning again.

There's nothing wrong with attaining spiritual progress whatever it really is. You might well have said that spirituality offers the only solution to human problems in passing but it got lost somewhere in all the and mysterious utterances. A few lines explaining how it's supposed to be the solution would have ensured that it didn't get overlooked.

In past thread i also explained why spirituality is important but again as i realized that people where not interested in the issue i stop mention it.

I have to admit to getting exasperated by the way you word your posts. Trying to figure out what you're on about is very hard work and I don't always succeed.

You don't succeed because you rush to quick conclusion that is why i did suggest you to slow down.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Are we STILL playing prod the looney?

OK. Hear what you say rick, but on the other hand, bacon.

[Little Rik]

Are we STILL playing prod the looney?

OK. Hear what you say rick, but on the other hand, bacon.

Why wasting your precious time reading rick posts?
I would rather get more bacon on both hands and some more bacon on my eyes and be covered in bacon all over.
The quicker you do the quicker you look like one.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Are we STILL playing prod the looney?

OK. Hear what you say rick, but on the other hand, bacon.

I would rather get more bacon on both hands and some more bacon on my eyes and be covered in bacon all over.

Stop that, you're turning me on.

[Whateverist]

You can do better, Jacob.

http://youtu.be/ms8j5g6OKZU

[Confused Ape]

Are we STILL playing prod the looney?

I'm interested in the Ananda Marga philosophy because I've always been interested in comparative religion and belief systems etc. I'm trying to have a discussion about it with him. I find his writing style very difficult to follow but he explained that English isn't his native language.

I don't think he's a loony because he's a vegetarian because I'm a vegetarian myself. Where I disagree with him is about humans not being omnivores.

The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees

In the early 1960's, when Dr. Jane Goodall began her now famous study of the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it was thought that chimpanzees were strictly vegetarian. In fact, when Goodall first reported this behavior, many people were skeptical and claimed that meat was not a natural part of the chimpanzee diet. Today, hunting by chimpanzees at Gombe has been well documented (Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986), and hunting has also been observed at most other sites in Africa where chimpanzees have been studied, including Mahale Mountains National Park (Uehara et al. 1992) (also in Tanzania) and Tai National Park in Ivory Coast in West Africa (Boesch and Boesch 1989). At Gombe, we now know that chimpanzees may kill and eat more than 150 small and medium sized animals such as monkeys, wild pigs and small antelopes each year.

Did early hominids hunt and eat meat in a pattern similar to one described above for wild chimpanzees ? It is quite probable that they did. Recent discoveries in Ethiopia by Tim White, Gen Suwa and Berhane Asfaw of the fossil remains of very early autralopithecines (Australopithecus ramidus) show that 4.4 million yearolobus monkeys and small antelope. A. ramidus was different from chimpanzees in two prominent anatomical features: they had much smaller canine teeth, and a lower body adapted for walking on the ground rather than swinging though trees.

Large canine teeth are not necessarily important for carnivory; chimpanzees do not use their canine teeth to capture adult colobus; rather, they grab the prey and flail it to death on the ground or against a tree limb.

When Sarkar was alive, the commonly accepted knowledge of the day was that chimps and all other apes are strictly vegetarian. It's now been discovered that they aren't - even gorillas eat insects. Sarkar died in 1990 and he was a philosopher, not an archaeologist or a primatologist who spent decades studying the behaviour of wild chimpanzees.

What I do find baffling is why so many 21st Century vegans and vegetarians insist that humans aren't omnivores in order to justify their choice of diet. After all, there are other vegans and vegetarians who accept that humans are omnivores but we still choose not to eat meat.

[Cyberman]

Why wasting your precious time reading rick posts?
I would rather get more bacon on both hands and some more bacon on my eyes and be covered in bacon all over.
The quicker you do the quicker you look like one.

And you don't want to look like a bacon, Jacob.

[Tonus]

*nod* that's Ivy's job.

[Jacob(smooth)]

You can do better, Jacob.

http://youtu.be/ms8j5g6OKZU

Fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap...
[/u]