X-Ftn-To: Spartacus

Spartacus wrote:
>Strange then that I have never heard of that Dalai Lama or
>other spiritual masters usually flames their adepts or their fellow monks...

I don't see Dalai Lama as any kind of authority, not even as a
positive example. But if you observe the yogic teachers, the ones who
produce enlightened students, you'd be surprised.

But as I said, you're not going to follow any advice, so my writing to
you is merely a waste of bandwidth.

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

X-Ftn-To: Slavo Lapic

""SLAP"" wrote in message
news:9afuir$49vi$1@as121.tel.hr...
>Evo imam problema sa citiranjem-prenosenjem teksta na
> koji zelim reagirati ,ljudi me tjeraju da citiram a ja se ne snalazim sa
> ovom svojom tehnikom-ne znam citirati. Malo prije sam pokusao ali ne ide.
> Susjed mi je objasnio da se da naredba kopiraj pa to preneses u svoj okvir
i
> das naredbu odlozi,..ja to odlozim a preneseno je bez onih vrhova strelica
> ili crtica koje se pojaviti trebaju da se razlikuje moj i tvoj tekst. Ajd
> pomozi ako mozes! Lako je covjeka kritizirati,treba pitati zlas li to i
dati
> nekoliko tehnickih savjeta.

Kao sto vidim, koristis Outlook express v.5. Nije ni cudno da se ne kuzis.
;>
Odi u Tools..options..send. Ukljuci sve check-boxove, pogotovo "include
message in reply". Pretpostavljam da Ti quotanje ne radi zato sto to imas
iskljuceno. Lupi "OK".
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.

> Sad ne mislim na tebe konkretno nego na
> prethodnike kojima je moj tekst bez citiranja bio ludilo. Neki ljudi su
kao
> mamine maze,sve im smeta,ja ih trebam podsjecati sto su pisali i na sto
> konkretno reagiram.

Jebi se, kao da si mi ti najbitniji faktor u zivotu, pa cu se samo baviti
Tvojim pizdarijama. Ti nesto napises pa neka si ja mislim sto komentiras.
Boli me kurac, lakse mi Te je staviti u killfile, pa necu imati tih
problema. Discipliniraj se, nisi doma u stali nego na newsima.

X-Ftn-To: Andrej ?api?

"Andrej ?api?" wrote:
>> Ma kakva antimaterija, daj smisli neki pametniji termin, jer ce se
>> inace fizicari posrati po Tebi. :)
>
>Ono sto fizicari nazivaju antimaterija, ustvari je samo drugi oblik
>materije.
>Antimaterija je totalna suprotnost materiji: vjecna, neunistiva, svjesna,
>itd, ma kuzis sto zelim reci.
>
>Ustvari i materija je samo jedna od vrsta Bozanske energije, ako Boga
>prihvatimo kao Vrhovnog Energetika.

Meni se cini da si Ti popusio foru od Prabhupade.

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

X-Ftn-To: Blue Rajah

"Blue Rajah" wrote:
>> I use sarcasm on you because I am nauseated by
>> your hypocrisy.
>
>With so many perceived hypocrites extant, you must spend an awful lot of
>time nauseated. Perhaps you shouldn't attach so much importance to
>hypocrisy, especially if it bothers you that much. Isn't freeing yourself
from attachments like this an important part of the work you're supposed to
>be doing?

Well, I guess that if you're a hypocrite, you probably don't have a
problem with it (or, as a real hypocrite, you can act like you don't,
because spiritual people don't have problems with anything); the
others, however, do. And it is important, enough so to freeze one's
spiritual progress. Why improve, when you can simply behave like you
did, instead? Get up to date on the spiritual lingo and the world is
yours.

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

X-Ftn-To: Blue Rajah

"Blue Rajah" wrote:
>> Suffering is every state of consciousness that is below absolute
>> fulfillment.
>
>That's a negative definition. All you're saying is that it's not absolute
>fulfillment. But what is it?

You want to say that the sentence I wrote wasn't simple enough for
you? ;>

>Is pleasure suffering? I never describe it that way.

Pleasure actually can be suffering, if it is monotonous, not
completely fulfilling, or if it happens in the wrong circumstances.
Also, if you prolong it into infinity, everything that is not so good,
that you would never want to leave it for anything, will cause
suffering. Think about it and you'll see for yourself.
If you can improve on it, it's not worth keeping. If you do keep it,
you will suffer. Simple. The enlightenment is something you can't
improve on, because it's the best.

>> >Is the sensation of pain suffering?
>>
>> Not necessarily. Pain without suffering is possible, if one doesn't
>> feel victimized by pain. There are masochists, you know.
>
>I know. So we should be careful to detach the elements of the phrase "pain
>and suffering" that you used earlier.

When I used the term "pain", I didn't mean "the sensation of pain",
which is the phrase that _you_ used. There are many varieties of pain,
and I didn't mean the physical one, which I consider to be quite
irrelevant in comparison with some other forms of pain.

>I don't "keep mixing pain with suffering". You're laboring under a
>misimpression.
>
>The use of the term "pain and suffering" in this thread was yours,
>not mine.
>
>Blue Rajah: "Perhaps Westerners are conditioned to think of unpleasurable
>feelings as pathologies. When they don't feel 'happy', they think they're
>sick."
>
>Daniel: "Maybe, but if enlightenment isn't happiness, it must be something
>more. After all, I didn't hear a definition of sat-cit-ananda that would be
>consistent with pain and suffering. It would thus seem that the "western"
>definition of sickness isn't far from the truth."

Better re-read this, so that I won't have to write it all over again.
You're fishing in dull waters. I said that pain and suffering aren't
consistent with sat-cit-ananda, as a response to your claim, which
implies that the "westerners" are not spiritual enough because they
don't have an orgasm when something unpleasurable happens to them. Of
course they don't like it and they want to change it; after all, even
the "easterners" think that pain sucks, and one of the main reasons
why a yogi wants liberation is the painfulness of the physical
existence, from birth to death. Therefore it is easy to prove that you
just babble in order to hear yourself talking, and to share your
profound spiritual insights with us, to show us how unlike those
shallow western hedonists you are. ;>

>> >Pardon me if I think you're just obfuscating.
>>
>> And I think that you're full of shit.
>
>I have no idea why you're acting so hostile.

I'm not buying your crap, that's all.

>> >> :)) You probably think that you said something very wise. ;)
>> >
>> >Probably I did. You probably think you're wiser than I.
>>
>> :) So, if I now say that I am, then I admit that my ego is bigger than
>> yours, and then it's actually _me_ who's an arrogant, shallowminded
>> egomaniac around here?
>
>Yes.

Oh, if that would make your ego feel bigger and more comfortable in
its appearance of spiritual modesty, I might even be humble enough in
my appearance of unspiritual arrogance, to oblige you. ;>

>> No thanks,
>
>Then are you saying that you're not wiser than I am? If you're not
>claiming superior wisdom, why are you sneering at what I think may be wise?

The truth is that you babble pure nonsense, and that I see it. There
is a possibility that you are in fact a very wise person who plays a
role of a total asshole in order to teach us all what to avoid, and in
that case I would be willing to admit that you surpass my wisdom.
However, I doubt that this is the case.

>> >> When one is happy, one transcends suffering.
>> >
>> >When one is dead, one transcends suffering,
>>
>> When one is dead, one doesn't necessarily transcend even
>> the physical existence - therefore the reincarnation, let alone
>> suffering.
>
>Maybe. All I know is that no dead person has ever complained to me about
>suffering. The rest is just guesswork.

It only proves that you don't have a way of hearing dead people's
complaints.

>But how does your statement that "Suffering is every state of consciousness
>that is below absolute fulfillment" square with your statement that "When
>one is happy, one transcends suffering"?

One day you will be able to discriminate between statements made from
different positions and depths. But this day has not yet come.

When one is happy, one transcends suffering. But, if the happiness
that he experiences is not the absolute value, he would wish to go
beyond, into something more. If he isn't able to do so, he'll suffer.
The suffering because you feel nothing above pure joy is indeed
suffering, but compared to a state in which you feel nothing but
severe emotional trauma, it is pure bliss. If I want to counter a
shallow nonsense, I'll write that joy is better than suffering. But,
if one wants a perfect definition of suffering, I would have to say
that in comparison with God, everything else is suffering. So, it is
better to feel good than to feel bad, but even feeling good isn't
completely fulfilling, and so one will have to find something even
better. The best of all is God, and by finding God, all suffering will
cease. Yes, that is purely from personal experience. If you want to
call it wisdom or enlightenment, feel free to do so.
And, since I explained my point perfectly well, I feel no need to
elaborate any further, and if you choose not to accept my arguments,
well, it's your choice. Your potential for not understanding exceeds
my potential for explaining.

>> I probably think that you're talking
>> about things far above your experience, too.
>
>I don't claim to be enlightened, so I suppose it's accurate to say that I'm
> talking about something beyond my experience.

Cool. But I'm talking only about things within my experience.

>I suspect that this is true for you, too.

Nope, it isn't.

>Or are you claiming to be enlightened?

Of course. I would have to be a total idiot to write from a position
of authority if things were otherwise. Not only that _I_ know, I can
also teach others. My confidence can be confused with arrogance, but
it is just a sign that I know that I know, that's all. And because I
know, I can tell when someone doesn't.

>> Indifference is when you don't react because you are too dumb
>> - like a rock. You can grind it and smash it into little pieces, and
>> it doesn't react in any measurable way.
>
>Indifference is the same as insensate?

Very close, yes. This is why the stupid people are seldom troubled
with the things that torment the wise.

>> Transcendence, however, is when someone you love hurts
>> you in some way, and you don't take it personally, and you
>> forgive that person.
>
>Like a battered spouse?

No, more like Jesus on a cross, or like Milarepa eating the poison.

>Are you fluent in Sanskrit, Daniel?

No, I just use the terms that don't have an adequate translation in
English.

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

X-Ftn-To: Spartacus

Spartacus wrote:
>But why not then try to educate the people, get them more
>aware of what yoga really is, than just calling them
>assholes?

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.
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. 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.

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.
Control creates a block somewhere around mani-pura, because this is
the chakra that regulates the flow of the astral substance, and
control is an astral activity. You can't have it both transparent and
active; it will block the Kundalini ascent and resistance will destroy
your astral body. This is what happened to you the last time, and it
will happen again.
The opposite of control is surrender. Surrender, however, isn't
enough; surrender opens sushumna nadi, but if you want to open it
fully, at its entire length, you need to surrender more deeply, up to
the very core of your soul. You need to identify God as the closest,
the dearest. This is the core of your being. In surrender to that, you
will have, technically speaking, a full Kundalini awakening and its
ascent through sushumna. When you attempt to make love to the thing
closest to your soul, you unite your consciousness with your life -
that's what the images of Shiva and Shakti really mean. Just don't
concentrate on the energy and its movement because you'll have more
trouble. Work with the consciousness, and the energy will follow.
Basically, just do the basic meditation, it sounds simple but there's
plenty of heavy theory behind it. You don't need to know the theory in
order to succeed; insisting on control and explanations will most
likely get in the way. If you insist on will and control, you'll most
likely end up like Crowley, insane and dead.

>OK, but do you think your flame will help Hari and you
>yourself to be more spiritual, to be more enligthened, to be
>more developed?

Yes, that was exactly what I had in mind. You'd be surprised how
effective that is. Kicking complacent butt often has an awakening
effect.

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

X-Ftn-To: Hari Har Singh

"Hari Har Singh" wrote:
>Sarcasm is allways a way to hide ones true - often very agressive / hateful
>(so called 'negative') - feelings behind nice words, block an honest
>communication and protect oneself against others attacking. It's like
>shooting arrows from behind a castles walls.
>The words are nice but you can feel the agression behind them.
>
>If you experience this in your personal life - often men like to communicate
>this way because often they are not 'able' to express and feel what they
>really feel

I use sarcasm on you because I am nauseated by your hypocrisy. I have
been reading this NG for a couple of years, with certain pauses, and
I've mostly remained in the lurk mode - mostly because I hardly see
anything worth responding to. Basically, the majority of postings here
is from people who see yoga as something between stretching and
aerobics; there are also some interesting messages, but the overall
situation is far worse than for instance on the Kundalini-gateway list
(run by Angelique), which also has its assholes, but one can also find
very honest people who are deeply rooted in reality. If I happen to
visit the USA, I hope to meet some of those people, whom I already see
as good friends.
Here, however, when we eliminate people with superficial ideas about
yoga, kooks like Campbell or plane psychos like "Brahmananda", what is
left are the hypocrites like yourself; people who create an impression
that they know what they're talking about. Your "spirituality"
consists of learnt behavior - and that's not all. You are as capable
of cruelty and viciousness as any other person, but you are not honest
enough to claim it and say that it's yours; au contraire, you cover
your blade with sugar coating before you stab someone with it - always
in the back, and in the dark, because it's not _you_ who did it.
Throughout these years I have seen your hypocrisy in action, when
someone verbally attacks you. I see you squirm, I see hatred and anger
within you, but you don't vent them in the open, no, that would be
unspiritual. You smile, you keep your lightspirited mask, but I would
never want to be alone in the dark with the likes of you. You are the
living example of everything that is desperately wrong with the faked
spirituality, so common these days. And, I'm not sure if I'm the only
one around here who sees this phenomenon, or if there are other
lurkers who are equally nauseated by you, but who see no point in
saying it.

And, Mr. Quasi Sikh Hypocrite, I don't use sarcasm as a cloak&dagger
technique, as you use kindness. If I don't like something, I spit it
out. I don't smile and pretend that it tastes well, just because it
would spoil my public image if people thought that I can actually _not
like_ something.
I don't think that there's anyone in the world dumb enough _not_ to
see my sarcasm as a fist in your face, so it's not really a coverup
ploy, my aggression is clearly visible, without any attempt to hide. I
simply don't like you and I think that the guys like you are the exact
opposite of anything spiritual. But, if people think about your words,
quoted above, and apply them to yourself, they might actually see a
pattern here.

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

X-Ftn-To: Hari Har Singh

"Hari Har Singh" wrote:
>> > I fart on your transcendence.
>>
>> Thank you. I fart on your sattvo-guna.
>
>LOL - 2 'enlightened' Egos :-)

Oh, I suppose we could _never_ measure up with you... you are so
humble, gentle, kind.. and, ho ho ho, always so funny and
lightspirited. It just shows how blissful your spirit is, how lightly
and from such distance you take everything... never annoyed, or
disturbed... How very spiritual! Oh, I bow at your lotus feet, oh
enlightened one! What a wonderful manifestation of Kundalini yoga - as
taught by Yogi Bhajan, of course; I suppose all the praise goes to
him. Let us all hold hands and smile.

Yuck.

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

X-Ftn-To: Blue Rajah

"Blue Rajah" wrote:
>> In buddhism, the first noble truth defines suffering as a problem,
>> and the fourth noble truth offers the solution to the problem of
>> suffering in the form of the noble eightfold path, which leads to
>> the cessation of suffering - nirvana.
>
>What is suffering?

Suffering is every state of consciousness that is below absolute
fulfillment.

>Is the sensation of pain suffering?

Not necessarily. Pain without suffering is possible, if one doesn't
feel victimized by pain. There are masochists, you know.

>Does the cessation of suffering mean that one doesn't feel pain?

The fact that you keep mixing pain with suffering suggests that you
didn't think very deeply into the subject. Cessation of suffering is a
state of consciousness which you never want to leave, because it is
absolutely fulfilling.

>> And no, buddhism doesn't describe
>> enlightenment as bliss, not primarily; it defines it as
>> sunyata, the void, which _is_ bliss.
>
>A =/= C, but A = B and B = C.

Sorry kid, but a grain of salt is not a grain of pepper, although a
grain is a grain.
What I said has an analogy in the statement that the sea is not salt,
although it is salty. Enlightenment is not (just) bliss, although the
void is blissful. Is that simple enough or do I have to draw you an
illustration in colors?

>Pardon me if I think you're just obfuscating.

And I think that you're full of shit.

>> >The enlightened
>> >person transcends them.
>>
>> :)) You probably think that you said something very wise. ;)
>
>Probably I did. You probably think you're wiser than I.

:) So, if I now say that I am, then I admit that my ego is bigger than
yours, and then it's actually _me_ who's an arrogant, shallowminded
egomaniac around here? No thanks, I'll leave that job to you, you are
much better equipped for it than my most humble and modest self. :)

>How long is your dick?

Long enough for my wife not to complain. :)

>> When one is happy, one transcends suffering.
>
>When one is dead, one transcends suffering,

When one is dead, one doesn't necessarily transcend even the physical
existence - therefore the reincarnation, let alone suffering.
You can't transcend something you don't have. It's like saying that
poor people transcended money. You can transcend money only if you
have it, and then renounce it for something better. If you don't have
it, you're just broke.

>> When one is liberated,
>> one transcends happiness. That's how it works.
>
>You probably think I didn't say exactly that.

Yes, I probably do. I probably think that you're talking about things
far above your experience, too.

>> Indifference is the opposite of transcendence, although
>> many clueless people imply that it's the same thing.
>> Indifference is the worst aspect of tamo-guna, while
>> transcendence goes beyond sattvo-guna. Therefore, the
>> transcendence of suffering must go through happiness,
>> before it goes beyond it.
>
>Sorry, you lost me there. What with your insistence that A =/= C although
>A = B and B = C, I'm having some trouble understanding just how you're
>arriving at your conclusions.

You're repeating yourself. Does that mean that one logical fallacy is
all you're able to come up with, or can you do better?

>How is indifference the opposite of transcendence?

Indifference is when you don't react because you are too dumb - like a
rock. You can grind it and smash it into little pieces, and it doesn't
react in any measurable way.
Transcendence, however, is when someone you love hurts you in some
way, and you don't take it personally, and you forgive that person. It
doesn't mean that you don't care, or don't perceive the pain, or don't
understand the situation; it means that you have understanding of the
situation that is far above immediate response. A term consistent with
transcendence is "unconditional love" - the sanskrit terms would
probably be prema, karuna, maitreya and similar.

>Use English, rather than Sanscrit terms.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that we were on alt.yoga, where even the name
of the group is in sanskrit.

>I realize this may be difficult for you, since you
>seem to be mired in terminology.

:)) Oh indeed, absolutely. :)

>> I fart on your transcendence.
>
>Thank you. I fart on your sattvo-guna.

Oh, did you just use sanskrit? Bad boy, very bad boy! ;>

>> >I don't know anything about truth, so I can't tell you what is
>> >closer to truth than something else.
>>
>> Then shut up and don't attempt to sell your ignorance as
>> high wisdom.
>
>I am unaware that I was "selling" anything. What are you selling?

I'm selling your ass. Apparently I won it as a trophy.

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

X-Ftn-To: Andrej ?api?

"Andrej ?api?" wrote:
>Dakle tvrdi se da postoje u biti materija i antimaterija, tj. materijalna i
>duhovna cestica.

Ma kakva antimaterija, daj smisli neki pametniji termin, jer ce se
inace fizicari posrati po Tebi. :)

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