Hemant Mehta

[Angrboda]

Now you reach the limit of dishonesty Yog.
In the previous post I point out to you your failing in saying that intuitional science and Hinduism go hand in hand when in fact they don't.
Instead of admitting your failing you instead change subject thinking that I don't notice that.

Right. I changed the subject by repeating my words. That's a neat trick I've got there. Either that or you're a liar.

Now you come down with more garbage which of course lack of any evidence.
Where is the evidence that Sarkar .........repackage a bunch of Indian myth and lore?
Come up with evidence or go back to sleep.

On the one hand you say that Sarkar's teachings have a seven thousand year pedigree, on the other hand you deny that Sarkar is just repackaging
ancient shit. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't have it both ways. The truth is that Sarkar was repackaging ancient shit,
and that ancient shit is worthless legend and myth. You've claimed that intuitional science leads to knowledge, but you've produced nothing but
rehashed ancient bullshit. That's because the bullshit is a lie.

Wikipedia says, "Sarkar's system of spiritual practice has been described as a practical synthesis of Vedic and Tantric philosophies."
And the definition of a synthesis is, "combination or composition, in particular; the combination of ideas to form a theory or system."
So Sarkar's system is a combination of Vedic and Tantric philosophies. Old shit that never led anybody to any enlightenment.
Sarkar was just repeating old crap that he had learned from books, legends, and shit. Nothing new. So you can take your
memes and colorful font enabled chants of "fool" and shove them up your patootie, along with your worthless yoga.

Name one thing that you learned from "intuitional science" alone.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

erm...evolution is a directionless process. 'Devolution' is a nonsense word. If humans began to get hairier, walked more stooped over, developed smaller brain cases, and in other ways became more ape-like, it would still be properly called 'evolution'.

Boru

[Little Rik]

erm...evolution is a directionless process.  'Devolution' is a nonsense word.  If humans began to get hairier, walked more stooped over, developed smaller brain cases, and in other ways became more ape-like, it would still be properly called 'evolution'.

Boru

No, Bor.
Devolution is not a nonsense word.
It is just the opposite of evolution.
Not according physical science but according the reality of going forward or going backward.

The job of physical scientists so far has been to see a change over time.
They call this change evolution but they wouldn't know who goes forward and who goes backwards.
They can not see within each and every creature.
They can not know who gain and who lose.
They don't know which animal become a human being and which human being goes back to become an animal.
For them every change is evolution but this is incorrect.


DEVOLUTION
ˌ
formal
descent to a lower or worse state.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=devol...e&ie=UTF-8



I guess you never thought about that Bor, did you?






(color mine)

---

Now you reach the limit of dishonesty Yog.
In the previous post I point out to you your failing in saying that intuitional science and Hinduism go hand in hand when in fact they don't.
Instead of admitting your failing you instead change subject thinking that I don't notice that.

Right.  I changed the subject by repeating my words.  That's a neat trick I've got there.  Either that or you're a liar.

You are an absolute joke and a real nut case Yog.
It didn't take me long to discover that.  

Now you come down with more garbage which of course lack of any evidence.
Where is the evidence that Sarkar .........repackage a bunch of Indian myth and lore?
Come up with evidence or go back to sleep.

On the one hand you say that Sarkar's teachings have a seven thousand year pedigree, on the other hand you deny that Sarkar is just repackaging
ancient shit.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You can't have it both ways.  The truth is that Sarkar was repackaging ancient shit,
and that ancient shit is worthless legend and myth.  You've claimed that intuitional science leads to knowledge, but you've produced nothing but
rehashed ancient bullshit.  That's because the bullshit is a lie.

Wikipedia says, "Sarkar's system of spiritual practice has been described as a practical synthesis of Vedic and Tantric philosophies."  
And the definition of a synthesis is, "combination or composition, in particular; the combination of ideas to form a theory or system."
So Sarkar's system is a combination of Vedic and Tantric philosophies.  Old shit that never led anybody to any enlightenment.
Sarkar was just repeating old crap that he had learned from books, legends, and shit.  Nothing new.  So you can take your
memes and colorful font enabled chants of "fool" and shove them up your patootie, along with your worthless yoga.
Name one thing that you learned from "intuitional science" alone.

The more you try to get out the mental quick sands the more you sink in.
You just make so much confusion that you are now totally lost.
You say......All that Sarkar did was repackage a bunch of Indian myth and lore.......

Let us see what the word repackage means.
It means......package again or differently or present in a new way.

That never happen Yog.
Shiva was teaching the same meditation that Sarkar was teaching and what his teachers are now teaching.
And so the tandava dance and so the moral code of conduct.
What Sarkar was teaching also was Prout and microvita.
These things Shiva was not teaching for obvious reasons.
In those times there was no need for these teaching as in those times people had different problems.

Now let us see your demented idea that Sarkar repackage-d...... a bunch of Indian myth and lore....

Myth are stories that may or may not carry any truth.
I did asked you to provide evidence about these so called myth but I am still waiting for your reply.
The day you will produce this evidence that Sarkar was going around telling stories void of truth then
we can discuss this.

In the meantime better you go back to sleep considering your total mental confusion.  

[emjay]

@Little Rik. Something I'm curious about; you've defined how rebirth works in your view for humans... bad; devolve into an animal, neither good nor bad; no change, and good; evolve spiritually in some way into some higher being. But how does it work for animals in your view? Ie how does a dog, say, evolve (in your sense) into a human? What is a higher spiritual state for a dog?... what guarantees it an upgrade, downgrade, or no change? Eg what is a good dog that will be reborn as something 'better', what is a bad dog that will be reborn as something 'worse', and what is a neither good nor bad dog that will be reborn again as a dog?

[Little Rik]

@Little Rik. Something I'm curious about; you've defined how rebirth works in your view for humans... bad; devolve into an animal, neither good nor bad; no change, and good; evolve spiritually in some way into some higher being. But how does it work for animals in your view? Ie how does a dog, say, evolve (in your sense) into a human? What is a higher spiritual state for a dog?... what guarantees it an upgrade, downgrade, or no change? Eg what  is a good dog that will be reborn as something 'better', what is a bad dog that will be reborn as something 'worse', and what is  a neither good nor bad dog that will be reborn again as a dog?

Easy Em.
I already explained this point several times.
Is a pity that you miss it.
Never mind.
I will go through this topic once again.
Plants and animals are driven by instinct.
Whatever they do they never build any karma.
Mother nature drive them to do and to behave in a certain way.
There is no such a thing as a bad dog or a bad animal.
It is like your little little kids.
If they brake a glass you have no right to hit them but as soon as they grow up and after they develop
some consciousness they become more and more responsible for what they do and the karma law apply to them in the good or in the bad.
Humans have enough consciousness to distinguish between the right and the wrong so they are responsible for their actions.
Got it now?  

[The Grand Nudger]

So, how many of them can I kick..then, before karma does something to me?  What's the karmic footprint on there, and is there any karmic offset plan to allow for, say, the kicking of twenty dogs if I also donate to the local dog pound? I'm just wondering how one goes about becoming karma neutral.

[Whateverist]

erm...evolution is a directionless process.  'Devolution' is a nonsense word.  If humans began to get hairier, walked more stooped over, developed smaller brain cases, and in other ways became more ape-like, it would still be properly called 'evolution'.

Boru

No, Bor.
Devolution is not a nonsense word.
It is just the opposite of evolution.
Not according physical science but according the reality of going forward or going backward.

It is a wonder how easily Rik is able to counter your argument, Boru. Over against repeated attempts to point out the way "evolution" is used to describe the (directionless) change in morphology of life forms over time, Rik has merely to state and restate his own naive interpretation of the word. I'm sure if this were happening in person he would not only repeat it often but also louder in order to persuade us.

[Little Rik]

So, how many of them can I kick..then, before karma does something to me?  What's the karmic footprint on there, and is there any karmic offset plan to allow for, say, the kicking of twenty dogs if I also donate to the local dog pound?  I'm just wondering how one goes about becoming karma neutral.

It all depend Kem.
Suppose a dog attack you.
You have the right to defend yourself whether you kick the dog away twenty or hundred times or in any other way that may stop it from keep on attacking you and in this case no karma is involved.
On the other hand if you kick a dog that did nothing to you then you will attract bad karma and if you donate to a dog pound you also may attract karma.
Again it depend.
If you expect no thanks and no later rewards you do not attract any good karma but if you expect any thing in return then you attrack good karma.
Also good karma is not that good because in the future good karma will have to be repaid to you.
That means that you will have to be reborn again to experience that reward.
To be born once again means to be stuck in an other body once again.
Why would you want that considering that you just delay once again your freedom?  

[The Grand Nudger]

So, how many of them can I kick..then, before karma does something to me?  What's the karmic footprint on there, and is there any karmic offset plan to allow for, say, the kicking of twenty dogs if I also donate to the local dog pound?  I'm just wondering how one goes about becoming karma neutral.

It all depend Kem.
Suppose a dog attack you.

Na, not that.  No attack...just wondering about kicking dogs for the hell of it.

You have the right to defend yourself whether you kick the dog away twenty or hundred times or in any other way that may stop it from keep on attacking you and in this case no karma is involved.

Rights?  I live in Murica, not Rikistan.  I'm not asking you about any rights.

On the other hand if you kick a dog that did nothing to you then you will attract bad karma and if you donate to a dog pound you also may attract karma.
Again it depend.

-uh huh, and I'm wondering just how many of the bad kind of dog kickings will land me in karmic peril?  Ballpark figure.  Also, wondering what sort of things cover for..say..kicking 20 dogs? Say I help an old lady across the street, how many dogs is that worth, karmically?

If you expect no thanks and no later rewards you do not attract any good karma but if you expect any thing in return then you attrack good karma.
Also good karma is not that good because in the future good karma will have to be repaid to you.
That means that you will have to be reborn again to experience that reward.
To be born once again means to be stuck in an other body once again.
Why would you want that considering that you just delay once again your freedom?  

Again, Murica, got plenty of freedom..just trying to get some info on this vague "karma" business you're setting up. I assume you'd know these specifics, what with all the institutional science you've applied to the subject.

[emjay]

@Little Rik. Something I'm curious about; you've defined how rebirth works in your view for humans... bad; devolve into an animal, neither good nor bad; no change, and good; evolve spiritually in some way into some higher being. But how does it work for animals in your view? Ie how does a dog, say, evolve (in your sense) into a human? What is a higher spiritual state for a dog?... what guarantees it an upgrade, downgrade, or no change? Eg what  is a good dog that will be reborn as something 'better', what is a bad dog that will be reborn as something 'worse', and what is  a neither good nor bad dog that will be reborn again as a dog?

Easy Em.
I already explained this point several times.
Is a pity that you miss it.
Never mind.
I will go through this topic once again.
Plants and animals are driven by instinct.
Whatever they do they never build any karma.
Mother nature drive them to do and to behave in a certain way.
There is no such a thing as a bad dog or a bad animal.
It is like your little little kids.
If they brake a glass you have no right to hit them but as soon as they grow up and after they develop
some consciousness they become more and more responsible for what they do and the karma law apply to them in the good or in the bad.
Humans have enough consciousness to distinguish between the right and the wrong so they are responsible for their actions.
Got it now?  

Well, I'm sorry I missed it... but I can only read you in small doses

So non-human animals get an auto-upgrade, is that it? Is that straight to human, or is there a linear progression/hierarchy of animals that they have to go up through? Ie what is a 'worse' animal to reincarnate into and what is a 'better' one? Nature is a pretty brutal business all round but arguably some animals have it easier than others in terms of suffering, depending on where they are in the food chain etc. In other words, how does 'reincarnation allocation' work going downwards (devolving) relative to someone's bad karma in death? Is it based on the amount of suffering an animal would supposedly endure in life (ie quality of life) or is related to the animal's supposed degree of consciousness/intelligence?