(forwarding from VNN)
--
Hello my friends, nice to hear so much response. But please, it would
be great if we agreed on some readable method of quotation, because it
would make it much easier to follow the conversation. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
gHari
Member posted 09-18-1999 11:35 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Danijel,
>My actual advice was posted early in the discussion. I have
>subsequently tried it myself (remembering when circumstance precluded
>chanting), and it was very very effective. Very very enjoyable as
>well. You can try it anywhere, anytime.

Unlike the perception some people got, I didn't write with intent to
insult and criticize, but with intent to provoke. There are questions
and there are answers, and one of the answers is that you find what
really does work in your method and do it, and thus become really
enlightened, instead of just posing as such.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda Dasa
Member posted 09-18-1999 01:22 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda, why do you think I would ever want to answer anything you
have to say? Every time I tried to have a conversation with you, it
was completely useless, because you don't know anything and you are
extremely arrogant and offensive. But hope is eternal, so I write.

>And what or who is God ?

Acintya nirguna, sat-cit-ananda.

>I suppose you know all the people in the world, and their hearts, who
>are chanting Hare Krishna, and therefore know that the result is
>'pathetic'

I don't have to, I'm talking to those with pathetic results.

>>>But I find it dangerous to think that it was all that real and I
>>>am getting close, because my guru alaways explained that when you
>>>think like that, you are really very far.
>>
>>You can get close only if you're making any progress at all.
>
>Absolute truth is never an object, but it is the Supersubject.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. But with this you
just buried dvaita; I didn't know you're from Sankaracarya's lineage.
;)

>If we imagine that we have the absolute in our hand we must be
>cheating ourselves.

Listen, since God is so great, even the short moments of awareness of
God are enough to change one's life. With proper practice, those short
moments change into ongoing presence, where God becomes a background
of every thought and action. It is not necessary to know God in any
way other than losing your will in his.

>Let me answer that. Becvause it is evident from your postings that you
>don´t much about how the chanting of Harinama has really affected the
>hearts of those who practice seriously.

This is a statement of no essence. If someone practices seriously and
gets actually relevant results, I have no problem with that. But if a
method advertises itself as universally good, and the only cure for
the world, and is effective in only 0.00001% of the population, then
it is marginal, not universal. If the method was as good as
advertised, all the practitioners would already be the saints of
highest order, but since it doesn't happen, there must be a problem
somewhere and it's better to find it than to keep deluding yourself
and shooting the messengers.

>If one of your students doesn´t follow your method, whatever it is,
>the desired result will not be attained. It is the same with the
>Gaudiya Vaisnava method of mantra-japa.

My method is very limited, it works only with people who are very
close to enlightenment, and they are very close to abandoning the
worldly functioning, but they lack the means, and I provide those.
With people who still have many experiences to live through and see
where they lead, my method will be useless. It doesn't work with
everyone, but in the group where it's applicable, it creates excellent
results.
(Actually the method works with those who aren't that close to
enlightenment as well, but there the transformation of psyche is so
accelerated, that it can create great strain, even madness. Kundalini
isn't to be played with)

>And to surrender to God means to do what exactly? And according to what >religion/practice?

According to my practice. Observing the dearest of the dear, who was
the background of my life forever, the bliss in everything, the
knowledge in everything, and offering all my love... and then you'll
see what follows.

>Wrong Danijel.
>God´s Name identical with Him and Her.

Prove it. If you do, you'll bury your technique, as I did before with
the same argument.

>But the Name can not be perceived as such if the consciousness is not
>clear. If a person is chanting while commiting offences, that person
>is not chanting the Absolute Name, but is only perceiving a shadow or
>reflection of the glory of the Absolute. If the consciousness is pure,
>we will perceive the Absolute Name, then we will realize what it is.
>The Name is actually not merely the sound, but when the mercy of the
>Absolute comes to us at His sweet will, then we will actually chant
>the Nama proper.

Do you have any personal experience to back that up with? I hate
writing from experience with people who throw quotes from books at me.

>>You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
>
>Hehehe, I don´t think you understand that sentence Danijel.

I don't think you understand humor. You should try it, it's good for
health. It's also a quality of those who have a full heart. It just
overflows and all the fun comes out. :)

>>Humility, is that the thing where ten people spit at me,
>>and I smile and say "thank you for your kindness"? )
>
>If that is your understanding of humility you don´t what it is.
>Real humility is to realize that the Absolute is eternal and
>inconceivable and that I am a tiny particle of that Absolute. If I
>realize it, the false ego will disappear.

But of course. The tiny ego will be gone, and the big one will appear,
the one who knows that I Am, and there is no other. The one who knows
that God is the only foundation and reality of everything. The one who
is so full of realization, that he'll have no doubts and questions.
You should try that, too. It's very good for self-confidence to know
that you are so much loved by God, that it can fulfill you forever,
and it'll never go away.

>Because they are not practicing properly perhaps?
>Is everybody humble as a blade of grass for starters?

That's nonsense, because the method is advertised as universal, as
yuga-dharma, not as a special method that only a handful of pure
bhaktas can practice. It is _supposed_ to work with the "conditioned"
people. Otherwise it is not a method, it is a description of the goal,
I already said that.

>"You guys" I assume means the image of a devotee which is in your
>memory. This is an incomplete image, because it is not based on the
>truth, but upon the observation of a bunch of immature bhaktas from
>ISKCON.

You better start giving me more credit than that.

>>but when it turns out that nobody is willing or capable of
>>discussion, it starts looking ugly.
>
>Another statement out of the blue.

What #$&# blue? This is the naked truth.

>Lower bonds, such as the porno picture on your website?

:))))) LOL :)))))) No, lower bonds such as the substance of your mind
that sees pornography in beauty. Those lower bonds will prevent you
from. seeing God, because while they exist, no subtlety can enter.

>>A question: what does it mean to say God's name?
>
>It means that The mercy of the Absolute appears in your heart
>while chanting and thus reveals itself.

My basic meditation and Angelique's grounding exercise can awaken the
heart to the fullest after just minutes of practice, if not the first
time, then the second, if you _have_ a heart to be awakened, and if
you are willing to surrender to the method without limitations, that's
the only condition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-18-1999 10:59 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I said that I had gotten a taste a few times AND THAT THIS WAS
>SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ME.

If that satisfies you, who am I to object. I'm of the kind that
isn't satisfied with the little things, that's why I need God, and
nothing less will please me. Nothing but perfection will do for me.
I'm not a modest person. Modest people are satisfied with lower goals,
they'll earn money and spend it and go to church on Sundays. Modest
people with lower goals never attain the highest goal. God is attained
only by those who are not satisfied with less.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

Hello my friends, nice to hear so much response. But please, it would
be great if we agreed on some readable method of quotation, because it
would make it much easier to follow the conversation. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
gHari
Member posted 09-18-1999 11:35 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Danijel,
>My actual advice was posted early in the discussion. I have
>subsequently tried it myself (remembering when circumstance precluded
>chanting), and it was very very effective. Very very enjoyable as
>well. You can try it anywhere, anytime.

Unlike the perception some people got, I didn't write with intent to
insult and criticize, but with intent to provoke. There are questions
and there are answers, and one of the answers is that you find what
really does work in your method and do it, and thus become really
enlightened, instead of just posing as such.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda Dasa
Member posted 09-18-1999 01:22 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premananda, why do you think I would ever want to answer anything you
have to say? Every time I tried to have a conversation with you, it
was completely useless, because you don't know anything and you are
extremely arrogant and offensive. But hope is eternal, so I write.

>And what or who is God ?

Acintya nirguna, sat-cit-ananda.

>I suppose you know all the people in the world, and their hearts, who
>are chanting Hare Krishna, and therefore know that the result is
>'pathetic'

I don't have to, I'm talking to those with pathetic results.

>>>But I find it dangerous to think that it was all that real and I
>>>am getting close, because my guru alaways explained that when you
>>>think like that, you are really very far.
>>
>>You can get close only if you're making any progress at all.
>
>Absolute truth is never an object, but it is the Supersubject.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. But with this you
just buried dvaita; I didn't know you're from Sankaracarya's lineage.
;)

>If we imagine that we have the absolute in our hand we must be
>cheating ourselves.

Listen, since God is so great, even the short moments of awareness of
God are enough to change one's life. With proper practice, those short
moments change into ongoing presence, where God becomes a background
of every thought and action. It is not necessary to know God in any
way other than losing your will in his.

>Let me answer that. Becvause it is evident from your postings that you
>don´t much about how the chanting of Harinama has really affected the
>hearts of those who practice seriously.

This is a statement of no essence. If someone practices seriously and
gets actually relevant results, I have no problem with that. But if a
method advertises itself as universally good, and the only cure for
the world, and is effective in only 0.00001% of the population, then
it is marginal, not universal. If the method was as good as
advertised, all the practitioners would already be the saints of
highest order, but since it doesn't happen, there must be a problem
somewhere and it's better to find it than to keep deluding yourself
and shooting the messengers.

>If one of your students doesn´t follow your method, whatever it is,
>the desired result will not be attained. It is the same with the
>Gaudiya Vaisnava method of mantra-japa.

My method is very limited, it works only with people who are very
close to enlightenment, and they are very close to abandoning the
worldly functioning, but they lack the means, and I provide those.
With people who still have many experiences to live through and see
where they lead, my method will be useless. It doesn't work with
everyone, but in the group where it's applicable, it creates excellent
results.
(Actually the method works with those who aren't that close to
enlightenment as well, but there the transformation of psyche is so
accelerated, that it can create great strain, even madness. Kundalini
isn't to be played with)

>And to surrender to God means to do what exactly? And according to what >religion/practice?

According to my practice. Observing the dearest of the dear, who was
the background of my life forever, the bliss in everything, the
knowledge in everything, and offering all my love... and then you'll
see what follows.

>Wrong Danijel.
>God´s Name identical with Him and Her.

Prove it. If you do, you'll bury your technique, as I did before with
the same argument.

>But the Name can not be perceived as such if the consciousness is not
>clear. If a person is chanting while commiting offences, that person
>is not chanting the Absolute Name, but is only perceiving a shadow or
>reflection of the glory of the Absolute. If the consciousness is pure,
>we will perceive the Absolute Name, then we will realize what it is.
>The Name is actually not merely the sound, but when the mercy of the
>Absolute comes to us at His sweet will, then we will actually chant
>the Nama proper.

Do you have any personal experience to back that up with? I hate
writing from experience with people who throw quotes from books at me.

>>You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
>
>Hehehe, I don´t think you understand that sentence Danijel.

I don't think you understand humor. You should try it, it's good for
health. It's also a quality of those who have a full heart. It just
overflows and all the fun comes out. :)

>>Humility, is that the thing where ten people spit at me,
>>and I smile and say "thank you for your kindness"? )
>
>If that is your understanding of humility you don´t what it is.
>Real humility is to realize that the Absolute is eternal and
>inconceivable and that I am a tiny particle of that Absolute. If I
>realize it, the false ego will disappear.

But of course. The tiny ego will be gone, and the big one will appear,
the one who knows that I Am, and there is no other. The one who knows
that God is the only foundation and reality of everything. The one who
is so full of realization, that he'll have no doubts and questions.
You should try that, too. It's very good for self-confidence to know
that you are so much loved by God, that it can fulfill you forever,
and it'll never go away.

>Because they are not practicing properly perhaps?
>Is everybody humble as a blade of grass for starters?

That's nonsense, because the method is advertised as universal, as
yuga-dharma, not as a special method that only a handful of pure
bhaktas can practice. It is _supposed_ to work with the "conditioned"
people. Otherwise it is not a method, it is a description of the goal,
I already said that.

>"You guys" I assume means the image of a devotee which is in your
>memory. This is an incomplete image, because it is not based on the
>truth, but upon the observation of a bunch of immature bhaktas from
>ISKCON.

You better start giving me more credit than that.

>>but when it turns out that nobody is willing or capable of
>>discussion, it starts looking ugly.
>
>Another statement out of the blue.

What #$&# blue? This is the naked truth.

>Lower bonds, such as the porno picture on your website?

:))))) LOL :)))))) No, lower bonds such as the substance of your mind
that sees pornography in beauty. Those lower bonds will prevent you
from seeing God, because while they exist, no subtlety can enter.

>>A question: what does it mean to say God's name?
>
>It means that The mercy of the Absolute appears in your heart
>while chanting and thus reveals itself.

My basic meditation and Angelique's grounding exercise can awaken the
heart to the fullest after just minutes of practice, if not the first
time, then the second, if you _have_ a heart to be awakened, and if
you are willing to surrender to the method without limitations, that's
the only condition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-18-1999 10:59 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I said that I had gotten a taste a few times AND THAT THIS WAS
>SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ME.

If that satisfies you, who am I to object. I'm of the kind that
isn't satisfied with the little things, that's why I need God, and
nothing less will please me. Nothing but perfection will do for me.
I'm not a modest person. Modest people are satisfied with lower goals,
they'll earn money and spend it and go to church on Sundays. Modest
people with lower goals never attain the highest goal. God is attained
only by those who are not satisfied with less.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

(This is a message I wrote for the VNN forums where there seems to be
a lively discussion about me, and since it's a bit long and I don't
know if it'll even appear there, I'm sending it here as well. If
you're not interested, please ignore.)

Hello my friends, as I can see we have a very lively discussion here.
:) I'm sorry I didn't join you sooner, but my news server didn't
convey Muralidhar's invitation to vnn, so I didn't get it until I used
another server. Please accept my apologies. And now, allow me to
answer some of the posts.
----

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-12-1999 10:50 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The whole problem is really one of impatience. So his own method
>works for all at the first time?

I'm puzzled with this statement, because in my statements I never even
once mentioned my method, neither in comparison with harinama japa,
nor otherwise. No, it doesn't work for all. There is a percentage of
people who are unreceptive for shaktipat, and there is a percentage of
those who receive shaktipat and decide to go their own way. There is
also a percentage of people who go their own way during the process.
All of them together, it's about one third of the people who ever
worked with me.

Impatience? But of course. How can one live without God for even a
moment? One can't be patient, there is no time, the time is all gone,
and we bought our death with our birth. We have to reach God now, it
is all lost. There is no other goal to achieve, nothing, all desires
and focus must dwell exclusively on the Lord. How can one wait, if
he's deprived of the only joy? Patience is the virtue of those, who
can be fulfilled with less. A yogi can wait no more.

>How coem we have not yet heard of this bluffer as the next
>jagad-guru?

Please restrain yourself from such statements, my friend, because I
can't see them as beneficial to anyone.

>I have been chanting for 30 years and by Krsna's grace a have had
>the taste for the name possibly once, possibly a few times more.

Have you considered changing the method? This success rate is
pathetic, in Kundalini-yoga schools it is advised to the disciple to
change the guru and the method if there is not a dramatic improvement
in his consciousness within a year, that's how effective the method
is, and that is what I advise to my students: if you see that you're
not making progress, leave me.

>But I find it dangerous to think that it was all that real and I
>am getting close, because my guru alaways explained that when you
>think like that, you are really very far.

You can get close only if you're making any progress at all.

>So it is certainly possible that one gets a direct experience from
>once inoffensive chanting of the holy name. But I doubt whether
>this man has ever tasted it, because as he himself says (and
>undoubtedly ahs read somewhere)

:)) Yes, actually I quoted myself, since I write it all the time. :))

>it is so great, you would indeed not really know what to do with
>it. So if we pick the arguments apart, we see that the criticism
>he levels against our method are the same as for his own.

Why do you think that?

>For if he was so enlightened as he claims, he would be much more
>compassionate. So you stupid bluffer, why don't you show in your
>so-called enlightened behaviour a bit more gentleness, and
>compassion.

You see, this is not very kind of you, because you probably know that
I wouldn't blow my own horn, one way or the other, and there is nobody
here to speak in my defense. What do you want me to do, give evidence
of my own wonderfulness? ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-12-1999 01:14 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The basic questions I would first ask is that if he accepts Lord
>Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Ultimate Autocratic
>Supreme Being, God and that no on else is superior to him.
>If his answer is yes,

:) So you would want a binary answer to this question? If you define
Krsna as God, and you define God as Krsna, then there must be
equality, and the answer is yes. However, from my experience, God is
far beyond any definition. God is far too big for human mind to
comprehend. I can know very little about God, because my physical body
limits the range of my insights, but my definition of God would be
that He/She is someone so vast, that my consciousness is build of it,
on it and in it, and the only way of total understanding of God is
total surrender, and understanding by being.

>then the second question will be this. Do you then accept that
>the Mahamantra is God Himself incarnate in His Namewords and
>sound vibration form in this age of kali.

Oh, that's easy, it's a clear no. God's name, in form of words,
invokes certain pictures within spirit, which are associated with the
inner memories of God, and by invoking those memories and blissing out
on them one can attain direct contact with God. This is the clue I
originally left out, and it answers my riddle: a deliberate fault in
my logic, saying that if God is absolute and his name is absolute, and
in absolute there is no quantity, one repetition is as good as
infinite n, and it brings instant realization. That is true, if one
could invoke the clear memory of God through God's name. But because
of the condition of the lower vehicles of spirit (physical, pranic,
astral, mental etc. bodies) a direct leap into the highest God's
aspect isn't possible, consciousness has to be refined, and a specific
method of invocation is necessary in order to start the memories of
the progressively higher states of spirit, eventually leading to
purusa uttama.
God's name isn't absolute, it is absolute in the relative, and in
order for it to work one has to work through the mazes of the mind,
working out the riddles, keeping the Ariadna's line in hand.
Mahamantra, therefore, isn't God, it is, if correctly applied,
Ariadna's line which can bring one out of the labyrinth.

>but for a materialistic reason. Such surrendering is actually
>better than no surrendering at all. So one who is not surrendering
>at all can in no way critisize those who are surrendering even in
>a materialistic way to Krsna.

That is all nice, if they surrender to Krsna, and not to something
they call Krsna, and God only knows what it is.

>The statement made by the kundalini yogi that it is better one
>becomes a gross sinful materialist than to become a pretender
>materialist devotee is a grossly misunderstood one even by
>materislistic devotees.

Even if I did say it, it would not be so remote from common sense, but
remember that I did not say it. I said that it is better to stick with
what you can feel as the truth (which is your own dharma) than to try
and follow someone else's dharma, no matter how good it sounds. If you
loose your dharma, your feeling of rightness, your place in the world,
you are in real trouble, because you lost the reality, and the reality
is the most intimate aspect of God: God is the ultimate reality, the
reality above all other realities, and by sticking to what we feel as
real, we will understand progressively deeper aspects of reality until
we eventually reach the highest Lord.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-13-1999 09:05 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I would still call his bluff.

You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
:)

>For he cannot even write the Mahamantra as he admits that he cannot
>'back it up'

You obviously have a really miserable opinion of mahamantra, if you
choose to give this explanation to my words. I just said that at the
moment of writing I couldn't remember the Highest Purusa, and
therefore if I wrote about it without having it in consciousness, it
would be just a lie, a counterfeit. I'm not really into that, so I
just didn't write it. That says nothing of other instances.

>Analysis always includes a sufficiently large sample. It is
>obvious that his so-called kundalini-yoga has not brought the
>expected humility as prescribed in the tantra sastra and that
>it thus equally fake.

Humility, is that the thing where ten people spit at me, and I smile
and say "thank you for your kindness"? ;))

>So now the flank lies open I give him a broadside. Once the
>flight is out of the argument - i.e. ha's come back to earth,
>can we engage him in sensible discussion.

I suggest you engage me with a six barrel Gatling cannon and 10K
rounds of ammo, that way you will surely end up victorious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jagat
Member posted 09-13-1999 06:45 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Now perhaps Danijel is getting a little pleasure putting the fox
>among the pigeons by giving you these questions.

It's that my mind is almost completely destroyed from discussions with
worldly-minded people, as Paramahamsa Ramakrsna would say, and I
prefer talking about God to talking about other things, so I thought
that creating grounds for a discussion would be a good start.
Unfortunately, some people think that one who spits hardest, wins.

>But I think that his basic point is to challenge the credibility of
>chanting by calling into question the results. If one Holy Name can
>have such wonderful results, why do I see so little coming of it.
>Indeed, I think this is a legitimate question. Why are the basic
>Vaishnava qualities in such short supply?

Yes, that was the original point.

>In such a case, we have to review our program. Of course, Danijel
>would say that any mantra will do. But both of us would agree that
>we need to chant attentively. Attentive chanting means no aparadhas.
>And he is actually correct: it is better to chant once attentively
>than to chant 16 rounds unattentively. Quality is better than
>quality. We do quantity in the hope that it will improve quality.
>Just like a runner who runs a lot becomes a better runner.

My initial stand was created to provide a good starting ground in a
discussion, where you guys would provide a quality defense of your
method - seeing, in the process, where you got it wrong, and thus
improving. For instance you realize that the point is to love God, and
that you forgot that somewhere along the path, so you just go back to
doing the thing that probably made you join your religious group in
the first place.

>Bhagavatam who had 24 gurus. The point was that if even a
>prostitute can give us lessons about spiritual life, can not
>Danijel say something that is meaningful to us?

:))) Unfortunately, I'm of far lower rank than a prostitute, so I'm
afraid that you can't learn anything from me, except what to avoid.
:)) (I start feeling for the poor ol' Lobster from the Kundalini-list
:))

>But we are so insecure in our beliefs that when anyone challenges
>them, we immediately cry foul! We demonize those who disagree with us.
>How pitiful. But how much fun for him as he watches you act in this
>childish way.

Yes, that's the problem - it's fun in the beginning, seeing the
insecurities in people, but when it turns out that nobody is willing
or capable of discussion, it starts looking ugly.

>There is nothing in Krishna consciousness that says that we are better
>than anyone else. We believe that Krishna will save us, but he saves
>those who are worthy in his eyes, so we have to fight to become
>worthy.

No, you must love to become worthy. If you have to fight, it must be
based on love. If love for God and all beings is your only foundation,
then you are truly free from the lower bonds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-14-1999 12:32 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>One who grossly challenges like Danijel does, even if an advance
>devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata speaks to him will become grossly
>offensive and thereby cause offense on the part of the speaker.

Oh, so it's OK if I verbally abuse you every time you call me names,
or even if I just feel threatened by something, and I'll still be able
to qualify as an advanced devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata? Wow, I
didn't know that, thanks. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief
Member posted 09-14-1999 01:30 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>jana 73, I think a constructive and creative impasse is reached when
>you categorize another as offensive as real communication and
>listening then stops as you cease to gain insight into the nature of
>the conflict as all understanding stops with your judgements.

Thank you, Chief, that was cool. :)

>It is always easy to find fault with another's position as Danijel and
>yourself have done as you are just bouncing the ping pong ball back
>and forth.

Exqueeeeze me, but I just came, he did all the ping, now I'm doing the
pong. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-14-1999 09:41 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>That concept of saying the devotees have NEVER chanted once is more
>upsurd than if he said that they chanted only once. The point is that
>is never the case where a devotee never chanted. If they say ISKCON
>means International Society For Krsna Consciousness this means they
>have chanted.

:)) If someone is the member of the Catholic Church, he must have seen
Christ, because that's the guy hanging on the cross behind the altar.
Come on. The essence is one thing, the symbol that represents it is
the other.

>If they say the they are Hare Krsna devotees they have
>chanted. If they chant one round, or half round, or quarter round they
>have chanted.

:))) I knew a drunken gentleman who said God's name at least hundred
of times every day, in all his curses. He mentioned all the saints he
knew, as well. He must have been so enlightened. :) After dying from
alcohol, he must have gone to heaven, because all his thoughts dwelt
on the Lord. ;)

A question: what does it mean to say God's name?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarun Krsnadas
Member posted 09-14-1999 05:46 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Where is Danijel now & what were his original statements? where can I
>find them?

I'm in Zagreb, Croatia. Want a full address? ;)
The original statements can be found on alt.religion.vaisnava, on some
server with longer memory, like www.deja.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
gHari
Member posted 09-16-1999 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a Prabhupada quote)
>Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter dated
>Feb. 21, 1968, and I am glad to learn that you had some discussions
>with some non-devotees. You can take it for granted that non-devotee
>class who is not in Krishna Conciousness as we are teaching are all
>great fools never mind how ever they may advertise themselves as
>meditators, yogis, philosophers, religionists, and so on.

Yes, children, they are all idiots, don't listen to them.

>We are
>presenting a scientific program of God conciousness on the basis of
>the highest authority, Bhagavad-gita.

And the scientific authority must never be disputed. :)

>For a preacher there are four
>principles to be followed. One, he must be fully surrendered to
>Krishna.

And I, of course, know Krishna and I know who is

Hello my friends, as I can see we have a very lively discussion here.
:) I'm sorry I didn't join you sooner, but my news server didn't
convey Muralidhar's invitation to vnn, so I didn't get it until I used
another server. Please accept my apologies. And now, allow me to
answer some of the posts.
----

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-12-1999 10:50 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The whole problem is really one of impatience. So his own method
>works for all at the first time?

I'm puzzled with this statement, because in my statements I never even
once mentioned my method, neither in comparison with harinama japa,
nor otherwise. No, it doesn't work for all. There is a percentage of
people who are unreceptive for shaktipat, and there is a percentage of
those who receive shaktipat and decide to go their own way. There is
also a percentage of people who go their own way during the process.
All of them together, it's about one third of the people who ever
worked with me.

Impatience? But of course. How can one live without God for even a
moment? One can't be patient, there is no time, the time is all gone,
and we bought our death with our birth. We have to reach God now, it
is all lost. There is no other goal to achieve, nothing, all desires
and focus must dwell exclusively on the Lord. How can one wait, if
he's deprived of the only joy? Patience is the virtue of those, who
can be fulfilled with less. A yogi can wait no more.

>How coem we have not yet heard of this bluffer as the next
>jagad-guru?

Please restrain yourself from such statements, my friend, because I
can't see them as beneficial to anyone.

>I have been chanting for 30 years and by Krsna's grace a have had
>the taste for the name possibly once, possibly a few times more.

Have you considered changing the method? This success rate is
pathetic, in Kundalini-yoga schools it is advised to the disciple to
change the guru and the method if there is not a dramatic improvement
in his consciousness within a year, that's how effective the method
is, and that is what I advise to my students: if you see that you're
not making progress, leave me.

>But I find it dangerous to think that it was all that real and I
>am getting close, because my guru alaways explained that when you
>think like that, you are really very far.

You can get close only if you're making any progress at all.

>So it is certainly possible that one gets a direct experience from
>once inoffensive chanting of the holy name. But I doubt whether
>this man has ever tasted it, because as he himself says (and
>undoubtedly ahs read somewhere)

:)) Yes, actually I quoted myself, since I write it all the time. :))

>it is so great, you would indeed not really know what to do with
>it. So if we pick the arguments apart, we see that the criticism
>he levels against our method are the same as for his own.

Why do you think that?

>For if he was so enlightened as he claims, he would be much more
>compassionate. So you stupid bluffer, why don't you show in your
>so-called enlightened behaviour a bit more gentleness, and
>compassion.

You see, this is not very kind of you, because you probably know that
I wouldn't blow my own horn, one way or the other, and there is nobody
here to speak in my defense. What do you want me to do, give evidence
of my own wonderfulness? ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-12-1999 01:14 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The basic questions I would first ask is that if he accepts Lord
>Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Ultimate Autocratic
>Supreme Being, God and that no on else is superior to him.
>If his answer is yes,

:) So you would want a binary answer to this question? If you define
Krsna as God, and you define God as Krsna, then there must be
equality, and the answer is yes. However, from my experience, God is
far beyond any definition. God is far too big for human mind to
comprehend. I can know very little about God, because my physical body
limits the range of my insights, but my definition of God would be
that He/She is someone so vast, that my consciousness is build of it,
on it and in it, and the only way of total understanding of God is
total surrender, and understanding by being.

>then the second question will be this. Do you then accept that
>the Mahamantra is God Himself incarnate in His Namewords and
>sound vibration form in this age of kali.

Oh, that's easy, it's a clear no. God's name, in form of words,
invokes certain pictures within spirit, which are associated with the
inner memories of God, and by invoking those memories and blissing out
on them one can attain direct contact with God. This is the clue I
originally left out, and it answers my riddle: a deliberate fault in
my logic, saying that if God is absolute and his name is absolute, and
in absolute there is no quantity, one repetition is as good as
infinite n, and it brings instant realization. That is true, if one
could invoke the clear memory of God through God's name. But because
of the condition of the lower vehicles of spirit (physical, pranic,
astral, mental etc. bodies) a direct leap into the highest God's
aspect isn't possible, consciousness has to be refined, and a specific
method of invocation is necessary in order to start the memories of
the progressively higher states of spirit, eventually leading to
purusa uttama.
God's name isn't absolute, it is absolute in the relative, and in
order for it to work one has to work through the mazes of the mind,
working out the riddles, keeping the Ariadna's line in hand.
Mahamantra, therefore, isn't God, it is, if correctly applied,
Ariadna's line which can bring one out of the labyrinth.

>but for a materialistic reason. Such surrendering is actually
>better than no surrendering at all. So one who is not surrendering
>at all can in no way critisize those who are surrendering even in
>a materialistic way to Krsna.

That is all nice, if they surrender to Krsna, and not to something
they call Krsna, and God only knows what it is.

>The statement made by the kundalini yogi that it is better one
>becomes a gross sinful materialist than to become a pretender
>materialist devotee is a grossly misunderstood one even by
>materislistic devotees.

Even if I did say it, it would not be so remote from common sense, but
remember that I did not say it. I said that it is better to stick with
what you can feel as the truth (which is your own dharma) than to try
and follow someone else's dharma, no matter how good it sounds. If you
loose your dharma, your feeling of rightness, your place in the world,
you are in real trouble, because you lost the reality, and the reality
is the most intimate aspect of God: God is the ultimate reality, the
reality above all other realities, and by sticking to what we feel as
real, we will understand progressively deeper aspects of reality until
we eventually reach the highest Lord.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj
Member posted 09-13-1999 09:05 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I would still call his bluff.

You can call my Dad in his office, too, if that will make you happy.
:)

>For he cannot even write the Mahamantra as he admits that he cannot
>'back it up'

You obviously have a really miserable opinion of mahamantra, if you
choose to give this explanation to my words. I just said that at the
moment of writing I couldn't remember the Highest Purusa, and
therefore if I wrote about it without having it in consciousness, it
would be just a lie, a counterfeit. I'm not really into that, so I
just didn't write it. That says nothing of other instances.

>Analysis always includes a sufficiently large sample. It is
>obvious that his so-called kundalini-yoga has not brought the
>expected humility as prescribed in the tantra sastra and that
>it thus equally fake.

Humility, is that the thing where ten people spit at me, and I smile
and say "thank you for your kindness"? ;))

>So now the flank lies open I give him a broadside. Once the
>flight is out of the argument - i.e. ha's come back to earth,
>can we engage him in sensible discussion.

I suggest you engage me with a six barrel Gatling cannon and 10K
rounds of ammo, that way you will surely end up victorious.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jagat
Member posted 09-13-1999 06:45 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Now perhaps Danijel is getting a little pleasure putting the fox
>among the pigeons by giving you these questions.

It's that my mind is almost completely destroyed from discussions with
worldly-minded people, as Paramahamsa Ramakrsna would say, and I
prefer talking about God to talking about other things, so I thought
that creating grounds for a discussion would be a good start.
Unfortunately, some people think that one who spits hardest, wins.

>But I think that his basic point is to challenge the credibility of
>chanting by calling into question the results. If one Holy Name can
>have such wonderful results, why do I see so little coming of it.
>Indeed, I think this is a legitimate question. Why are the basic
>Vaishnava qualities in such short supply?

Yes, that was the original point.

>In such a case, we have to review our program. Of course, Danijel
>would say that any mantra will do. But both of us would agree that
>we need to chant attentively. Attentive chanting means no aparadhas.
>And he is actually correct: it is better to chant once attentively
>than to chant 16 rounds unattentively. Quality is better than
>quality. We do quantity in the hope that it will improve quality.
>Just like a runner who runs a lot becomes a better runner.

My initial stand was created to provide a good starting ground in a
discussion, where you guys would provide a quality defense of your
method - seeing, in the process, where you got it wrong, and thus
improving. For instance you realize that the point is to love God, and
that you forgot that somewhere along the path, so you just go back to
doing the thing that probably made you join your religious group in
the first place.

>Bhagavatam who had 24 gurus. The point was that if even a
>prostitute can give us lessons about spiritual life, can not
>Danijel say something that is meaningful to us?

:))) Unfortunately, I'm of far lower rank than a prostitute, so I'm
afraid that you can't learn anything from me, except what to avoid.
:)) (I start feeling for the poor ol' Lobster from the Kundalini-list
:))

>But we are so insecure in our beliefs that when anyone challenges
>them, we immediately cry foul! We demonize those who disagree with us.
>How pitiful. But how much fun for him as he watches you act in this
>childish way.

Yes, that's the problem - it's fun in the beginning, seeing the
insecurities in people, but when it turns out that nobody is willing
or capable of discussion, it starts looking ugly.

>There is nothing in Krishna consciousness that says that we are better
>than anyone else. We believe that Krishna will save us, but he saves
>those who are worthy in his eyes, so we have to fight to become
>worthy.

No, you must love to become worthy. If you have to fight, it must be
based on love. If love for God and all beings is your only foundation,
then you are truly free from the lower bonds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-14-1999 12:32 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>One who grossly challenges like Danijel does, even if an advance
>devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata speaks to him will become grossly
>offensive and thereby cause offense on the part of the speaker.

Oh, so it's OK if I verbally abuse you every time you call me names,
or even if I just feel threatened by something, and I'll still be able
to qualify as an advanced devotee or even a Maha Bhagavata? Wow, I
didn't know that, thanks. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief
Member posted 09-14-1999 01:30 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>jana 73, I think a constructive and creative impasse is reached when
>you categorize another as offensive as real communication and
>listening then stops as you cease to gain insight into the nature of
>the conflict as all understanding stops with your judgements.

Thank you, Chief, that was cool. :)

>It is always easy to find fault with another's position as Danijel and
>yourself have done as you are just bouncing the ping pong ball back
>and forth.

Exqueeeeze me, but I just came, he did all the ping, now I'm doing the
pong. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
jana73
Member posted 09-14-1999 09:41 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>That concept of saying the devotees have NEVER chanted once is more
>upsurd than if he said that they chanted only once. The point is that
>is never the case where a devotee never chanted. If they say ISKCON
>means International Society For Krsna Consciousness this means they
>have chanted.

:)) If someone is the member of the Catholic Church, he must have seen
Christ, because that's the guy hanging on the cross behind the altar.
Come on. The essence is one thing, the symbol that represents it is
the other.

>If they say the they are Hare Krsna devotees they have
>chanted. If they chant one round, or half round, or quarter round they
>have chanted.

:))) I knew a drunken gentleman who said God's name at least hundred
of times every day, in all his curses. He mentioned all the saints he
knew, as well. He must have been so enlightened. :) After dying from
alcohol, he must have gone to heaven, because all his thoughts dwelt
on the Lord. ;)

A question: what does it mean to say God's name?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tarun Krsnadas
Member posted 09-14-1999 05:46 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Where is Danijel now & what were his original statements? where can I
>find them?

I'm in Zagreb, Croatia. Want a full address? ;)
The original statements can be found on alt.religion.vaisnava, on some
server with longer memory, like www.deja.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
gHari
Member posted 09-16-1999 12:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a Prabhupada quote)
>Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter dated
>Feb. 21, 1968, and I am glad to learn that you had some discussions
>with some non-devotees. You can take it for granted that non-devotee
>class who is not in Krishna Conciousness as we are teaching are all
>great fools never mind how ever they may advertise themselves as
>meditators, yogis, philosophers, religionists, and so on.

Yes, children, they are all idiots, don't listen to them.

>We are
>presenting a scientific program of God conciousness on the basis of
>the highest authority, Bhagavad-gita.

And the scientific authority must never be disputed. :)

>For a preacher there are four
>principles to be followed. One, he must be fully surrendered to
>Krishna.

And I, of course, know Krishna and I know who is fully surrendered.
The ones who chant "hare krishna", wear tilaka, sikha and dhoti are
surrendered to Krishna, the others are not.

>Two, intimately in friendly relationship with devotees trying
>to elevate conditioned living entities to Kr

Hello Muralidhar! :)

premada@aol.com (Premada) wrote:
>Dear Danijel,
>
>I've copied several of your postings over to WWW.VNN.Org at their forums
>section. You can find the thread under:
>"Philosophical Discussions"
>Entitled: "Can anyone answer Danijel"?
>
>The VNN forums are conspicuously marked by a more philosophical mindset than
>these newsgroups, and I firmly beleive the responses there will be much more
>satisfying.
>
>Perhaps we can both learn something. Please join us there.

I'm sorry about the huge delay in response, but I've just switched to
another news server, and discovered that the old one I used didn't
even show all the messages posted to the newsgroup, so I'm catching up
with it now. :(

The problem with vnn forums is that they are accessable through www
only, and I can't use them offline, so I prefer the usenet, but I'm
browsing through them right now...

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

eszewc@aol.com (ESzewc) wrote:

> jesus was a liar.

I am constantly amazed by the mind capable of saying things like that,
without even stopping to think about it, motivated by a mere
frustration with God and life, and need of attention. You act as a
child, who is deliberately naughty so it would be given attention with
punishment.

>Its not thou shall not kill, its thou shall not cause to
>die.

My friend, wake up. You "cause to die" with every breath, with every
step. Stop thinking about it. Live your human life with as much love,
dignity, consciousness and beauty as you can, and it will more than
pay for the deaths and pain necessary for its functioning. Stop
preaching bullshit and do something nice, make a positive balance in
your life. If you just bullshit bitterly, your final account will look
pathetic, and the bugs you killed or didn't kill won't count at all.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Radoslav Prica

Stovanje Felix!

felix@iskon.hr (Radoslav Prica) wrote:
> Jel su to oni koji jedu sami svoju osobnu pranu?
>;>>>>
> Samo ne kuzim da je to NOVI pokret.. zbunj.. pa to je prastara fora.

Nis me nemoj pitati... :)))
Daj napisi Ti nekaj pametnoga o tome, Tebi je prana specijalnost. ;)))

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Kresimir Simatovic

"Kresimir Simatovic" wrote:
>> Evo ti za kraj jedan tekst
>> Danijel je dao link prije jedno 3 mjeseca.
>> Ak trebas mogu ti dati link a otkrio sam da ima i prijevoda.
>
>Daj, daj, ja sam fajter po difoltu pa se i sa engleskim volim pofajtati.
>Bilo bi pozeljno da je to neka vrst hrvatskog.

Link je na mojem webu, na engleskoj verziji, na stranici s linkovima.
Sve od Terezije Avilske i Ivana od Kriza:
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/dturina/eng_links.htm

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Lupio

Lupio wrote:
>Hvala na savjetima. Napokon da ima netko tko zna više o tim stvarima,
>jer kako rekoh "bretarijanizam" je moj slijede?i korak na stazi, ja to
>još nisam, a da li ?e mi za ovladavanje i u?enje stvari koje si
>napomenuo trebati mjesec dana, godina, 50 godina ili života, to sada i
>nije toliko bitno. Hodaju?i tom stazom vremenom ?u saznati ono što mi
>je potrebno.

Ja se nekako bojim da si Ti sve krivo shvatio od osnova i temelja, pa
nadalje.

Duhovni razvoj ne ide u smislu da ces se Ti sad necim baviti, onda ces
steci neke posebne sposobnosti i prosvijetliti se, a sve to sam i bez
pomoci Boga ili takve neke vanjske sile. Takvo naucavanje je
sotonisticko i zagovaraju ga Crowley, Slavinski i ostala takva ekipa.
Esencijalna pogreska u takvom naucavanju je nerazumijevanje
sveprisutne Bozanske naravi koja prozima sve stvoreno, i koja nije
nesto protiv cega bi se covjek trebao boriti ili to nadvladavati, nego
nesto cemu bi se trebalo predati i s tim se uskladiti. Takvi pristupi
pogresni su u toj osnovnoj postavci i nece nikoga dovesti do stvarnog
prosvjetljenja. Takvi sustavi pocinju od sebe i sebe ne nadilaze.
Takvi sustavi sterilni su i jalovi i iskreni tragaoci za istinom ih
izbjegavaju. Iskreni tragaoci sebe zele nadici, a ne afirmirati.

Da se malo namjerim na lightworkere. To su u biti ljudi kojima je
materija sinonim za nesto prljavo, nebozansko i zastrasujuce; vidjao
sam primjere tolikog neprijateljstva prema materiji da takvi nisu
sposobni funkcionirati kao ljudi u fizickim tijelima, te ili pocinjaju
samoubojstvo, ili zive u nekakvom nerealnom svijetu maste podsticuci
medjusobne fantazije o svijetu "ljubavi i svjetlosti". Ima tu i
razumnih ljudi koji se ne furaju na channelinge vanzemaljaca i slicne
gluposti, i u tim krugovima se krecu zato sto bi oni htjeli "donijeti
ljubav i svjetlost na svijet", ali su obicno oni tamo zalutali, i
bolje bi im bilo negdje drugdje. Koliko god takvi lightworkeri pricali
o nekakvim "visim vibracijama", "novim energijama" i slicnim stvarima,
sasvim je ocito iz njihovog funkcioniranja kako se radi o prosjecnim
ljudskim bicima bez posebne genijalnosti kakvu bi bilo suvislo
ocekivati od bica cija je specificna energija visa od prosjecne
ljudske. Dovoljno je samo poslusati glazbu koja se vrti u backgroundu
tog weba, pa da se vidi kako se radi o ispodprosjecno jadnom uratku
razine "radio Marije". Ako mi netko pretendira na to da u svoje
funkcioniranje ukljucuje visa Bozanska stanja, onda ocekujem da ce mu
glazba zvucati otprilike kao ona od Mike Oldfielda, dakle krajnje
briljantno.
Indikativno je da Mike Oldfield jede normalnu hranu i pije Jim Beam, i
svako malo si razbije auto kad je pijan, ali u svojem djelovanju
koristi tako visoka stanja svijesti da prakticki nemam nekakav slican
primjer nigdje, a ponajmanje medju onima koji oholo drze sebe krunom
svijeta i "posvecenima".

Mislim da bi se pri vrednovanju nekakvog puta trebalo voditi nacelom
da covjeka ukalja ili ocisti ono sto iz njega izlazi, a ne ono sto u
njega ulazi, dakle da se vocka sudi po plodovima. Bitno je ono sto
covjek zraci u svijet, kakav trag ostavlja u svojoj okolini i u
svijetu, a ne je li on vegetarijanac, mesozder, pranozder ili sto vec.
Osnovna nacela istinske duhovnosti jesu uskladjivanje s Bogom i
Bozanskim zakonitostima na kojima je nacinjen svijet (kao prvo i
osnovno), te ocitovanje tih visih Bozanskih nacela u vlastitom zivotu
(sto je posljedica onog prvog). Jedna od takvih posljedica na
odredjenom stupnju moze biti i obustavljanje nizih pranicko-fizickih
tokova i njihova zamjena visim supstancijama, ali to nikada nije put,
to je neka vrsta nuspojave zivljenja cilja.

>Ali bih ti svakako bio zahvalan za više informacija, i po
>mogu?nosti kontakt adresa ljudi u Hrvatskoj koji imaju iskustva o tome.

Tesko da ces kod nas naci nekoga tko je radio nesto ozbiljno s tim, a
da to nije nekakva histericna frustracija kao i kod lightworkera
Americkog porijekla. Ja sam imao iskopcane pranicke sustave '97, kad
sam kroz nekih tjedan-dva imao pokrenute resurse vajre koji su
prilicno intenzivno prozeli fizicku materiju tijela do mjere da nisam
mogao nista jesti jer je moj sustav obicnu pranu naprosto "zgnijecio",
bila je prerijetka da bih je mogao asimilirati, pio sam mineralnu vodu
i to je bilo otprilike to, osim sto sam intenzivno udisao supstanciju
vajre kroz grlenu cakru. U jednom trenutku sam dobio znak "dosta s
tim", sve je prestalo, ja sam isao cistiti cakre iznad grla, a fizicki
sustav mi se vratio u normalno pranicko funkcioniranje (u mjeri koliko
nesto moze biti normalno a da ima veze sa mnom ;))).

Od ovih mojih manijaka cini mi se da je Bozo (bozo.juretic@st.tel.hr)
imao neke slicne stvari, da nije prakticki nista jeo tjednima ili
mjesecima jer mu je hrana bila "prerijetka", ali mislim da on nije
gubio fizicku masu kao oni koji si umisljaju stvari.

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

"MM" wrote:

>zanima me va?e mi?ljenje o tome da li Bog usli?ava opravdane molitve tipa
>molitve za ?ivotnog suputnika(djevojku,momka)...

Prije odgovora na to pitanje potrebno je najprije razjasniti sto je to
Bog, sto mi to uopce ovdje radimo i kakva je uloga molitve u tome.
Buduci da takitak pisem knjigu o necemu takvom, a ne zelim ju
prepisivati ovdje, budem malo skratio. :)
Recimo da je stvar takva da je Bog onaj aspekt apsoluta koji kao
apsolutan opazamo kroz relativno, kao relativna bica. Molitva Bogu,
ako se to tako postavi, moze biti jedino onakva kakvu je formulirao
Isus, naime "budi volja Tvoja". Takvim zazivom odricemo se svoje volje
u svijetu i u stvarima, i pozivamo Boga da ostvari savrsen red, onako
kako ga on vidi.
Idealna molitva za drugu osobu ce sadrzavati zelju da se toj osobi
ostvari najvece moguce dobro, ali bez preciziranja sto bi to moglo
biti - to se prepusta Bogu, jer buduci da je Bog daleko pametniji od
nas, sva je prilika da sto god dobro mi smislili, to ce biti daleko
slabije od onoga sto bi smislio Bog. Dakle molitvom Bogu priznajemo
prvenstvo nad svim ostalim silama, uklanjamo svoju slobodnu volju (kao
cesto najvecu smetnju) s puta, kako bi se ostvario Bozji plan u
svijetu.
Molitva za sebe treba biti zasnovana na jednakim nacelima kao molitva
za druge: dakle treba "razgovarati" s Bogom, reci kako se Tebi cini da
stvari izgledaju, reci sto bi Ti htio (i usput jasno formulirati sto
su Tvoje stvarne zelje, a sto su samo nacini da se one ostvare), i
zamoliti Boga da Te vodi na najbolji nacin. U onom trenutku kad Bozju
volju pozelis podrediti svojoj, to vise nije nesto sto bi imalo
previse veze s Bogom, vec poprima sotonisticke aspekte (gdje je
sotonizam u biti sustav u kojem se vlastita volja drzi osnovnim
nacelom koje treba provoditi).

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net