X-Ftn-To: Zoran Dzelajlija

Zoran Dzelajlija wrote:
>Danijel Turina wrote:
>> Why am I writing in this pit at all?
>
>Err, written English language exercise?

Yup, that must be it, good reason, yes. :)

>> :)) However, you _did_ do some serious shit while I was gone.
>
>If only I remembered. ;-)

:P :)

ps. FuT2mail, he? ;)


--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Zoran Znidaric

"Zoran Znidaric" wrote:
>Vodim ga i usmjeravam kroz zivot, i uvjek kad me poslusao ispalo je dobro.
>Ali sad dolazimo do njegove temeeljne slabosti: slabic je, neodlucan i sa
>slabom snagom volje.

A jebiga, mozda ce mu vise ojacati volju kad negdje gadno najebe, nego
od Tvoje "zastite".

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Vicko Vitasovic

"Vicko Vitasovic" wrote:
>Dobro, gdje se to vidi u mom pisanju?

Ma, Felix je jedan fini gospodin u godinama koji Ti hoce reci da si
evidentno plitak i bezbozan, i da ne bi bio takav da si bilo sto
pametno ikad u zivotu i ponjusio.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Vicko Vitasovic

"Vicko Vitasovic" wrote:
>"Romana Panduric" wrote in message
>news:fhpoft8e1b1fnsau28pt6l9v48p350le00@4ax.com...
>
>> >Sto se tice Danijela, njegova razmatranja su samo na prvi pogled
>> >smislena. Udjes li malo dublje nema ti tu kruha.
>>
>> Zasto je onda svaki Danijelov ucenik cak i pocetnik u stanju Tebe
>> dobiti u raspravi kad se sjeti?
>
>Zato sto te gurui - kad te se docepaju - mogu uvjeriti u bilo sto - bio je
>jedan film na TV Novi nedavno u vezi te teme. I da izgubis nogometnu
>utakmicu sa 2:0 oni bi te uvjerili daje nula veca od dvojke.

:) Buduci da imas iskustvo samo s katolickom varijacijom na temu
"gurua", cak bih se bio sklon sloziti s tom ocjenom. ;)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Maja Marchig

maja066@yahoo.com (Maja Marchig) wrote:
>>Dobro pitanje. Da bi neko bio moj frend, treba slijedi stvari koje i ja
>>slijedim.
>>Radi se o nekim opcim pravilima ponasanja, zapisanim u svim vecim
>>religijama.
>
>Ma sorry Zorane, ja te sad stvarno ni ne kuzim ni ne pratim... Dakle,
>sudeci po tvojim brojnim postovima na ovoj konfi ti si totalno zbunjen
>lik koji ne zna gdje ide, ali ima slabu viziju toga gdje bi zelio
>doci. Osim toga, u vise si navrata pokazivao ocite znakove
>malodusnosti, rezignacije i depresije. Nikako mi nije jasno u cemu si
>to zelio da te taj prijatelj slijedi????

:)))) LOL :)))

>Pazi, ja blage nemam tko je taj Rufus (premda zvuci opako),

Rufus Perreira, katolicki egzorcist iz Indije. :) Zvuci fakat grozno.
:)

>I, da, ja pusim, ponekad popijem casu vina ili pivo, psujem i sminkam
>se i nekako si mislim da je bolje tako nego pod utjecajem nekog tko ce
>moje poroke koristiti za lijecenje vlastitih kompleksa.

:)) Pametno, samo daj. :))
Ja se recimo umjesto toga flejmam. Mozda bi bilo bolje da pocnem
pusiti. ;))

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: jody

jody wrote:
>The fact that you regard yourself as a "me" separate from an
>"anyone attempting to perceive" you clearly places you in the
>category known as deluded regarding Self knowledge.

:))) What do you expect me to write, that God's presence is the
experiencer of itself as the eternal subject without objects? That
there is a possibility of observation of the observer, and that this
possibility manifests itself as the entire Creation?

And if I use common language, it automatically means that I'm an
arrogant idiot? Well, the theory that one must constantly speak
spiritual lingo and never say words like "I" or "me", in order to pass
your tests, is indeed humble. Actually, you're so humble that you can
automatically discard even Krishna and Jesus as unfit by your elated
standards. How enlightened must that make _you_... because _you_ are
the one to judge. _You_ are the one who knows what enlightened people
look and talk like. _You_ are the measure of enlightenment. Oh, how
indeed spiritually humble.
God, this world is infested with morons, please kill me. :(

>Still, I hold out the hope that the lack of adoration and
>positive mirroring for you around here will cause you to cease
>"writing in this pit" altogether.

You got this part right.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>I'd like to hear your opinion about experiences and feelings ans how much we
>should trust them.

It's very simple, actually. If the nature of the experience is such,
that it allows doubt, then doubt it, because it deserves nothing
better. But, some things are beyond doubt. You don't need a candle in
order to see the sun. Similarly, you don't need the rational intellect
and its miserable tools, such as doubt, to reveal you something that
reveals itself to you as far bigger than you and your mind. The mind
is only good for dealing with things that are smaller even than
itself.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: jody

jody wrote:
>I'd venture to say that the only thing you're seeing are your own traits
>projected through the scrim of your own deluded ideas about yourself.

Yes, I don't see you as capable for more.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>The shaman has a direct
>connection to the ultimate, why bother to create a complicated thought-system?

No evidence for that. This is as if I said that we live among the
invisible aliens that are superior to us, it's just that they never
bothered to say hello. It just doesn't make much sense. I guess that
Occam's razor would demand the conclusion that the shamanic
experiences belong to the sphere of primitive religion and superficial
experiences, because this is exactly what they seem to be, and I see
no reason to believe otherwise.



--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Wade Humeniuk

"Wade Humeniuk" wrote:
>> Emotional chaos - passionate, superficial sparks of feelings and
>> thoughts, like popcorn popping.
>
>I had an experience, some years ago with something similar. Sitting doing a
>mind watch meditation. Just sit, give the mind permission to think or do
>anything it wanted, and just watch. There came a sound/experience where my
>thoughts felt like the fizz on on the top of a soft drink. You know, the
>tiny bubbles that break on the surface of the liquid, sending a little spray
>of pop into the air. Very fast, continuous. It got louder then disappated
>and things became quieter, I ran out of fizz :). I have not had it since,
>passed right through it. The experience was somewhat pleasant. Popcorn
>popping sounds louder and more forceful. But I would think the two
>descriptions are related.

I'm trying to imagine what you mean, but I was speaking figuratively,
in attempt to display a chaotic mind as a bowl of popping corn - if
you did it, you'll know what chaos can come up if you open the cover.
:)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org