X-Ftn-To: Radenko

Radenko wrote:
>Pas ili machka sigurno nisi bio. Zhivotinje nemaju duh kao chovjek, pa sa
>kod njih ne dogadja (re)inkarniranje kao kod ljudi. Sve zhivotinje iste
>vrste imaju zajednichko "JA" koje nije utjelovljeno kao kod chovjeka, nego
>upravlja "izvana".

Potpuno netocno.

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

X-Ftn-To: Seeking Connection

Seeking Connection wrote:
>Sometimes people push
>our buttons. Hari-Har has said and i agree with him that it is because
>they are getting defensive and that it would be helpful to see what
>behavior triggered that. I have found that the behavior that triggers
>that is that I have attacked them however gently usually because I am
>angry and didn't communicate it honestly so I was trying to shame
>them. That is my pattern.

I see that everybody is a shrink these days. ;)
Too bad that you don't understand human psychology at all. You see,
getting angry is not the problem. The problem is if you do it in a
dysfunctional way, if you don't vent it out openly and channel it into
some cloak&dagger strategy, or, into self-destruction or a righteous
victim act. If you get angry about some injustice or similar BS, you
can become motivated to do something about it. There are extremely
many things that push my buttons. For instance, the massive
destruction of the planet, or the mean, vicious things that human
beings do to each other every day. It all pisses me off seriously, to
an extend where I dedicate my entire existence to doing something
about it. Also, human stupidity irritates me. I could in fact say that
it's none of my business and walk away, but so far my activities have
changed many lives in a positive way, and I have no intention to
change my behavior.
So, you can search for your patterns if you like, what do I care. You
can even search your praised Hari for patterns of repressed anger and
denial. There you could actually have some results.

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

X-Ftn-To: RvB

RvB wrote:
>>I think I'll stop writing on this fucking group altogether, because
>>every time I write something, there comes a smartass to disupute with
>>something I never said.
>
>I do not understand. What is wrong with commenting on things you leave
>out. Especially when these things are important to the commentor. This
>opens new points of views. What is wrong with that?

I find it irritating, that's all. Especially when I get criticised for
something that is merely a reader's assumption, not my actual
attitude.

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

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>>>>Ego is the disease. Kundalini is the treatment. God is the cure.
>
>>>What God?
>
>>The divine one.
>
>Sounds like an illusion to me.

Listen to yourself. You don't even know that God exists. Every
beginner in real yoga has no doubt about that fact since his
initiation. The illusion is all yours.

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

X-Ftn-To: alesclandre

alesclandre@yahoo.com (alesclandre) wrote:
>Oh well, what a pity ;-) We will lose a great mind ! No really,
>i think this newsgroup is too small for such a man as you ! Look,
>those last few days, sth like half the post were of your writing.
>You managed to insult about everybody, (not me, but it will not last,
>i guess). One has a low IQ, the other is a smartass, another is not
>sexually accomplished (whatever that means), the last is an ignorant.
>Maybe you should set up alt.danijel.turina, where everybody who
>understands you before you talk will come !!!!!

Piss off.

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

X-Ftn-To: Marcus E Engdahl

mengdahl@cc.hut.fi (Marcus E Engdahl) wrote:
>In article ,
>Danijel Turina wrote:
>
>>Ego is the disease. Kundalini is the treatment. God is the cure.
>
>What God?

The divine one.

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

X-Ftn-To: Vjera Lopina

vlopina@mudrac.ffzg.hr (Vjera Lopina) wrote:
>>Vidis, ja se recimo slazem s Tobom i smatram da u slucaju
>>ustanovljavanja defektnog fetusa treba napraviti pobacaj; to je,
>>recimo, jedna stvar u kojoj znanost pomaze ljudima da malo smanje
>>kolicinu sranja na svijetu. S druge strane, ljude koji abortiraju
>>zdravo dijete iz nekakve komocije i oholosti, iako imaju i sredstava i
>>mogucnosti, bi trebalo nabiti kroz supak na sablju od bana Jelacica.
>
>E vidis, mojoj ujni su doktori (u Njemackoj) nakon ultrazvuka rekli da je
>fetus defektan i toplo joj preporucili da abortira. Ona je kao dobra
>vjernica ipak odlucila roditi i rodila je potpuno zdravu curicu. Kaj imas
>reci na to???

Jel' bi se Ti to svadila? Samo daj.
Naime, ovdje postoji nekoliko problema. Prvi je taj je li abortus u
redu napraviti kad se sigurno ustanovi da je fetus defektan u tolikoj
mjeri da bi bio veci problem to roditi nego ubiti.
Drugi problem je mogucnost tocnog ustanovljavanja stupnja defektnosti
fetusa. Naime, ne samo fetusi, nego i sasvim mala djeca, imaju
nevjerojatnu sposobnost regeneracije. Doslovno mozes imati tesko
osteceni organ koji ce se regenerirati. Mozes podijeliti zigotu nozem
na dva dijela, i dobit ces identicne blizance, a ne dvije polovice
tijela. Ali, u odredjenim slucajevima se jako sigurno moze znati da je
ostecenje takvo da se _nece_ spontano oporaviti. Recimo, imas fetuse
kojima dodje do poremecaja u razvoju mozga na takav nacin da je citava
glava ispunjena likvorom a mozga prakticki nema. To ce izgledati kao
dijete, cak i kad se rodi, ali ce uvijek ostati biljka s elementarnim
refleksima. Sto s tim raditi? Drzati to na aparatima 60 godina?

>>Ako se gazela rodi s tri noge, onda ce ju lav imati za rucak. Ako se
>>rodi bez pola mozga, ili ako samo malo sporije trci od ostalih, opet
>>ce ju lav imati za rucak. Grabljivice se brinu za uklanjanje
>>inferiornih primjeraka. Buduci da "civilizirano drustvo" onemogucuje
>>efekt grabljivice, koji prociscuje genetsku bazu vrste, treba uvesti
>>umjetne efekte slicne vrste, kakve su imali cini mi se Spartanci, koji
>>su defektnu djecu bacali niz liticu. To je IMHO pravi pristup.
>
>Fakat pravi pristup! ;>>>>>
>Pocnes s defektnom djecom, pa onda nastavis s onima koji imaju
>ispodprosjecan IQ, pa onda s onima koji su ti iz bilo kojega razloga manje
>simpaticni... ono, fakat ne kuzim kaj te spopalo da ides zagovarati
>nacisticke ideje. :((((

Da si malo bolje pogledala, mogla si vidjeti da ja u stvari zagovaram
tako ekstremno ogranicenu primjenu abortusa, da bi netko trebao biti
obicni idiot da ne napravi abortus tamo gdje bih ga ja dao napraviti.
Isto tako, da si malo izvadila glavu iz dupeta, za promjenu, mogla si
se prisjetiti da razgovaras s covjekom koji zapravo odobrava cak i
veliki stupanj teskoca u necijem zivotu, i opterecenje koje cesto
granici sa smrtonosnim, zato sto takve stvari cesto imaju efekt
celicenja svijesti. Dakle, ja cak nemam problema s tim da se netko
rodi u odredjenoj mjeri hendikepiran, sve dok ima sposobnost ucenja i
razvoja. Neka je kratkovidan, neka je ruzan, neka je gluh ili slijep.
Jose Feliciano je npr. slijep i nepokretan, a odlican je glazbenik.
Ima jos takvih primjera. Hawking je totalno fizicki sjeban pa je
genijalan fizicar.
Ja bih, zapravo, najradije sebe retrogradno abortirao, da ne moram
slusati totalne idiotarije koje moroni pricaju na ovom sranju od
svijeta. Nazalost, jos imam posla tako da nista od toga.

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

X-Ftn-To: Dharmadeva

"Dharmadeva" wrote:
>> >A yogi is one who renders service to the world.
>> >Not one who imposes superiority complexes to justify their own position
>>
>> I think that you just repeat something somebody told you, without
>> understanding, like a parrot.
>
>C'mon - it is basic common sense.

Actually, it might have been basic common sense in the situation where
it was originally said. But now, when you're just parroting it out of
context, it is merely an indication that you still don't listen to
anybody but yourself.

>"Brahmana" is the one whose
>> consciousness has the quality of brahman, the supreme truth and
>> reality. His consciousness is always focused on brahman, emerged in
>> brahman, and therefore he is called brahmana. Only brahmana can confer
>> spiritual realization upon others, and therefore every true guru must
>> be brahmana.
>
>This is the first time you have actually defined the word. The thread
>started on the uselessness of the brahmin caste and that was what the
>previous discussion was about.

If you _did_ actually read what I wrote, you could see that I implied
this definition from the first message on, and it was fairly obvious
to any person of an at least average IQ.
But of course, you don't read other people's writing, you just assume
and preach.

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

X-Ftn-To: Dharmadeva

"Dharmadeva" wrote:
>"Danijel Turina" wrote in message
>
>> So it seems; I used the "reformed" definition, where membership of a
>> caste is a matter of personal qualifications, not something you can be
>> born into.
>
>The "reformed definition" - what on earth is that?

It's the definition used by practically every modern Hindu preacher
that came to the West. I can't believe that you never got stalked by
Hare Krishnas and forced to read their books. :)

>If it has to do with
>personal qualifications then the question of caste does not arise.

Then why are you so intensely disproving something that was never
actually defended?

>It is time to tear off the brahmin thread
>and throw it in the dustbin where it belongs.

There is a story about two zen monks. They were on their way to the
temple when they saw a beautiful girl who couldn't get across the mud.
One of them picked her up, carried her across, put her down, said
goodbye and they went on.
The other monk was silent for a while, but at a point he couldn't
restrain himself any longer and said:
"Brother, we are monks. We're not supposed to have contact with women.
Why did you touch that girl?"
"My friend", the other replied, "I left her way back there; how come
you're still carrying her?"

I don't have a brahmin thread.

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

X-Ftn-To: Dharmadeva

"Dharmadeva" wrote:
>everything to do with sociology. Krsna planned the whole Mahabharata to
>unite India and remove divisions.

This is utterly incorrect. After all, Krsna intiated Pariksit as the
king, at the end of Mahabharata. It is clearly said in Mahabharata,
and especially in Bhagavad-gita, that Krsna came to remove the
irregularities in dharma: the demons were born in the ksatriya varna,
and he came to provide their destruction. He actually only purified
the caste system. I don't know where you read that stuff, but you
obviously didn't read Mahabharata itself.

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