X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic

Damir Orlic wrote:
>A ima i killfajl. Mislim odma me stavi u taj vrazji
>killfajl

I hocu, a dalje neka se Domchi zajebava s vama.

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

X-Ftn-To: Damir Orlic & Felix

Damir Orlic wrote:
>> Ma da.. kotrljanje Camusa uzbrdo.. kaj got. Cisto gubljenje vremena.
>>;)))))))
>
>Pa ne bih rekao da je to cisto gubljenje vremena, vjerojatno se dize
>prasina kad se gura taj kamen uzbrdo i kada juri nizbrdo. Ako nista
>drugo barem se Sizif oznoji ... prema tome daleko od toga da je to
>cisto. ;>

DAJTE VAS DVOJICA KONACNO ODJEBITE S TIM PIZDARIJAMA, NABIJEM VAS NA
KURAC SKUPA S VASIM SIZIFIMA, PIVAMA I CAMUSOM!!!

Dnevno skidam sto poruka vasih besmislenih i plitkih pizdarija i
stvarno ste prevrsili svaku mjeru. Odite u hr.misc,
hr.alt.filozofiranje ili negdje drugdje gdje u definiciji grupe pise
da tu treba pisati besmislena sranja.

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

X-Ftn-To: Slavo Lapic

"\"SLAP\"" wrote:
>> Uvijek odgovaraj na poruku s "Reply group", nemoj zapocinjati nove
>threadove
>> s "new post" ili slicnim. U biti, kad lupis "reply group", trebao bi u
>> prozoru za odgovaranje dobiti citavu quotanu poruku. To sam sad isprobao i
>> ovo pisem iz M$-ovog smeca, tako da sigurno znam da radi.
>.
>Hvala ti Danijele na uspjesnom objasnjenju!

Evo, sad Ti quotanje dobro radi. Jos samo jedna stvar, kad odgovaras,
stavi u prvi red poruke:
X-Ftn-To: Ime Prezime
kako bi se s jedne strane znalo kome pises, a s druge strane ce zbog
te linije ljudi koji prate konfu s BBSa imati laksi posao. Nije da ih
ima puno, ali stvar je i meni preglednija. Ja koristim Forte Agent
koji ima malu skripticu koja to sama stavlja. Ne znam sigurno, ali
vjerojatno se slicna stvar moze napraviti i u Outlooku.

>Skoro sam pomislio da nesto ne stima kada se pojavio cijeli tekst,ali sam
>"otkrio" nekako da se moze plaviti i sa "Cut" skarama brisati.

Tocno, i tako mozes komentare fokusirati na tocno odredjene dijelove
izvorne poruke, sto je jedna od velikih prednosti elektronske
komunikacije, buduci da je tako moguc vrlo slozen i precizan dijalog.

>Imam jos
>jednu sitnicu: nestala mi je druga linija u Inboxu iznad donjih ikona,mozda
>se ta linija zove Unknown Zone,tamo gdje se plavi i gdje pokazuje
>odasiljanje pisama i dr kad se ukljuci internet.

U to se ne kuzim, naime koristim Agent, a u outlook se kuzim taman
toliko koliko je nuzno kad naletim na neki stroj koji ima samo to
instalirano, da mogu tamo skinuti postu i newse.

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

X-Ftn-To: Tracy Miller

tracym@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller) wrote:
> that that relationship is still quite a bit different
>than an encounter on a ng. A guru-chela relationship is an intense
>one, and hopefully would have more postive elements in it besides the
>arrogance of the teacher. If that is not the case, I could not think
>that it would really be a postive thing for the Chela.

As we say in Croatia, you're discovering America.

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

X-Ftn-To: Andrej ?api?

"Andrej ?api?" wrote:
>> Meni se cini da si Ti popusio foru od Prabhupade.
>
>A otkuda bi ti to znao? Nije valjda da TI citas knjige od Prabhupade? ;-)

Mora da se salis, procitao sam toga vise nego vecina Hare Krishni, a i
bolje se kuzim u njihovu teologiju.

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

X-Ftn-To: Phoenix (tm)

"Phoenix (tm)" wrote:
> Sto je dharma? :)) ozbiljno, zvuci kao neki bratac karmi. Daj malo
>pojasni jer ti ja ne znam sve te istocne termine. Najbolje mi je kad
>pocne Danijel sa Yoganadom Karamandom, Burindom, Yusodjkoaj om i sl.

Da si procitao moju knjigu, tamo bi o tome nasao dosta materijala.

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

X-Ftn-To: Sinisa Knezevic

"Sinisa Knezevic" wrote:
>> >No slazemo se da dusa jest vjecna i da se samo uprisutnjuje u vremenu
>> >u jednom trenutku, te da na kraju 'odlazi' iz vremena ... ?
>>
>> Ne, moj stav je daleko kompleksniji. Termin "dusa" objedinjuje dosta
>> stvari, i bolje bi bilo reci da se dusa razvija u vremenu do tocke u
>> kojoj spoznaje svoju transcendenciju vremenu.
>
>Spoznavanjem transcedencije vremena spoznaje se i odnos s Bogom, moze li se
>tada odnosnost nazvati postavljanjem a ne stvaranjem?
>
>Da pojasnim, izvan vremena duse stoje u odnosu na Boga, one su tako
>postavljene, date, a u vremenu taj cin se sagledava kao stvaranje iako ga
>nikad nije ni bilo.Transcedentiranjem vremena prestaje potreba za stvaranjem
>jer je to cin s odredjenim pocetkom i krajem u vremenu, i spoznaje se prava
>slika stvari u kojoj su duse u odnosaju s Bogom.Ta razlicitost, ta
>odnosnost,to opcenje s Bogom stvara prividnost vremena i dinamiku stvaranja.

Opet seres.

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

X-Ftn-To: Spartacus

Spartacus wrote:
>And to be sure that you know the one and only truth seems to
>be some sort of a mantra for one-track minded persons.

Maybe, but when you do know something, denying it is not modesty, it
is cowardice.
There are some wise people who are afraid of claiming their own
wisdom, because there are always people who will call them arrogant -
with the sole purpose of hiding their own arrogance, the worst kind.
You know, the most arrogant person in the world is the one who says
that he doesn't know, and acts like he does. I've seen several such
specimens on this NG. Like, they don't know anything about
enlightenment, but they know enough to keep preaching to others, and
to lecture me. Very humble assholes indeed. And now, the hypocrite
code of behavior would demand me to play modesty and flatter them, so
that they would accept me into their club. No thanks. I prefer
smashing their bullshit, that could at least result in something
positive, like honesty, for instance.

But it's more likely that I'll just shrug and leave you to your wise,
humble and fluffy gurus. The market, you know. They're selling because
somebody's buying.

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

X-Ftn-To: Spartacus

Spartacus wrote:
>> But as I said, you're not going to follow any advice, so my writing to
>> you is merely a waste of bandwidth.
>
>I noted that you couldn't answer my other questions,
>especially how the left hand path in the tantric yoga system
>looks upon kundalini, that is Vamacara.

Learn the alphabet before attempting to write novels.

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

X-Ftn-To: Tracy Miller

tracym@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller) wrote:
>>I might do that, _when_ I sense receptiveness on the other side. I'm
>>not Jehova's Witness, you know, I don't force truth down people's
>>throats. For instance, when you started writing about having problems
>>with raising Kundalini, I suggested that trying the techniques on my
>>web might be useful. If you did try the basic meditation, for
>>instance, you would learn more about raising Kundalini than would be
>>possible through any amount of explanation. Since you're attempting to
>>control and rape Kundalini, I figured that you'll probably mess
>>yourself up thoroughly and that you'll have only yourself to blame.
>
>Danijel, I don't get the impression that Lars is trying to control
>and rape Kundalini.

:) That just says that your insight isn't very deep.

>>If you, for instance, wanted to surrender to God completely, and love
>>him with all your being, your Kundalini would immediately be awakened
>>and raised without any problem whatsoever - simply because surrender
>>to God is the spiritual equivalent of the ascent of Kundalini from
>>mulaadhara to brahmarandra.
>
>I think it involves a little more than "surrendering to God"; it also
>involves some knowledge and practice of techniques. If what you say
>is true, ie, surrendering alone awakens kundalini, then Kundalini
>awakening would be a lot more common among Christians.

Find me a Christian who has surrendered to God (God, not some idea or
dogma) and I'll show you a Kundalini-awakened person. But,
Kundalini-awakening isn't enough, and one does need the techniques in
order to purify and develop his energetic bodies. Since I have
experience with that, I can recognize many Christian techniques as
Kundalini-based. I admit that their understanding of the process is
shallow, but surrender/remorse attitude is the next best thing to
up-stream kriya. Unfortunately, it has a limited effect, and is much
slower, so you need years and decades instead of days and months,
which can be very troublesome.

>>But I guess that you're not into
>>surrender, you'd like to be in charge, your own boss, in control of
>>things. You don't need to surrender to the higher reality, you already
>>know what you want, and now you just need to find a way to harness
>>energy for it. Good luck, you're gonna need plenty of it.
>
>Why don't you ask him instead of guess and assume?

:)

>>But, since I'm in a good mood today, I'll share something with you:
>>awareness and control in the process of Kundalini ascent are fatal.
>
>That could be a slightly extreme statement.

Well, let's do it this way: you guide people your way, I'll guide them
my way, and we'll see whose students are better off, OK?
It's not extreme at all; attempts of control are the very reason why
Kundalini has such a bad reputation - that it's dangerous, that you
can go insane or become ill, etc. But control seems to be some sort of
a mantra for egomaniacs: "Control, yes, give us more!" With Kundalini,
you don't need control. You need surrender. There's nothing to
control. There is no danger, no enemy. Visualizing hissing serpents,
whacking them on the head and forcing them up the spine might be a
very "male hero" type of yoga, like, you're in charge, you're in
control, you're in a lunatic asylum...

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