Za Istinata, Kitai i evreite
trust...@my-dejanews.com
Tova, koeto si razsqjdavah za Istinata se otnasia i za istoriata, a i za
vsichki ostanali nauki. Navremeto kogato si biah v Bqlgaria, imah dosta
poznati, koito biaha hodili pri Vanga i tia na vseki edin/edna beshe kazala
neshta kakto ot lichnia im jivot, taka i vqv vrqzka sqs zdraveto im, kato
istinski profesionalist, bqz niakoga da e bila v Medical School ili da e
pravila residency sled tova:)) Primer s edin moi rodnina, koito beshe bolen i
ne mojeha da mu postaviat diagnoza. E, ti ia postavila, vkliuchitelno i s
latinskoto ime na bolestta (imalo e meditsinsko litse pri neia, koeto e
razpoznalo imeto), osven tova dostavila imeto na edin nemski profesor,
spetsialist v oblastta, kqm kogoto da se obqrnat i koito da im predpishe edno
lekarstvo, chieto ime tia sqshto kazala. Dala im i koordinatite na profesora.
E, taka i stanalo, vsichko se potvqrdilo do nai-malkata podrobnost. Tozi
primer go davam samo kato iliustratsia, che pqtishtata do istinata mai sa ot
niakolko vida - indirektni (chrez nauka, vqzhvala na naukata, nishto protiv
neia niamam) i direktni - a kak imenno stava tova? E, iavno ne vseki moje da
ima dostqp do direktnia nachin po edna ili druga prichina, ili stepenta na
dostqpa moje da varira, a kakto znaete, malkoto znanie e opasno znanie,
zashtoto s nego moje da se spekulira, da se preuvelichi i drugi podobni. Az
ot godini imam interes kqm, kak da go narechem, mistichnoto, i sqm chela
knigi po razni vqprosi. Razbira se, da chetesh knigi i da imash experience,
sa dve razlichni neshta, no vse pak, da rechem intuitsiata me e vodila, if
you know what I mean. Ta ot raznite knigi, ot svoeto vqtreshno useshtane i
t.n. sqm rzbrala, che ima niva na sqshtestvuvanie otvqd realnia physical
world, i pqrviat e the astral world, sled tova e the causal world etc. Ta,
znachi, in the astral world ima t. nar. akashic records kqdeto se pazi
"znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek. Za niakoi, koito e
v sqstoianie da "otide tam i prochete", bi mogql da si dostavi vsiaka
neobhodima informatsia. Razbira se, ne e nujno da viarvate v tova, i
poniakoga e po-dobre da ne viarvate, zashtoto kolkoto e lesno chovek da
izpadne v klopka na sobstvenite si ili chujdi sqjdenia po otnoshenie na
niakoia prirodna nauka, tolkova e po-lesno tova da stane s takiva tqnki
neshta kato pronikvane do znanieto v po-finite niva. I e mnogo trudno da se
pretseni dali edin chovek, koito vi kazva, che e bil tam, naistina e bil tam.
No vodeshta e intuitsiata, dori predi chovek da e v sqstoianie da "vidi", ili
"chue". V tazi vrqzka, ako J. iska da uznae ISTINATA za bqlgarskata istoria,
nai-dobre da se stremi da poseti the akashic records, i dokato tova ne stane,
tia shte triabva da razchita na poznanieto, koeto predlagat sqvremennite
istoritsi.
Za Kitai iskah samo da kaja, che kitaiskata filosofia i mqdrost za jivota sa
edna ot nai-drevnite na Zemiata, no kakto niakoi kazvashe, che ima
tsiklichnost, ta tazi tsiklichnost izmestva tsentqra na prosperitet, kultura
(za men tova oznachava balans mejdu obrazovanost, lichni kachestva, pogled
kqm jivota, poznavane na sebe si, na duhovnata si sqshnost). Razbira se,
poniatieto kultura ima razlichen smisql pri razlichnite hora i natsii.
Za evreite-kolkoto evrei poznavam, vsichki sa mnogo inteligentni, imat dosta
common sense. Zashto sa se razprqsnali i sqdbata im e takav, moje bi akashic
records pak shte pomognat. Izobshto prichinite za vsichko, koeto stava na
tozi sviat mogat da se nameriat v the causal world, zashtoto the physical
world e samo otrajenie na tova, koeto e veche stanalo ili "zaplanuvano".
Trudno e da se razbere the Holocaust. Kakqv e smisqlqt na tolkova choveshko
stradanie i mizeria. Kogato gledah Schindler's list predi godini, ne mojeh da
ne iztrqpna ot nechoveshkoto otnoshenie na nazis kqm evrei. No tova samo mi
pokaza, che v horata ima mnogo carnivorous cherti, i che dosta goliama chast
ot horata ne sa taka dalech ot niakoi po-krqvojadni predstaviteli na
jivotinskoto tsarstvo, kakto izglejda. Ili te skoro da sa bili prerodeni
"vqltsi", "tigri" i tem podobni:)))
Kolkoto po-dobre edin chovek se otnasia kqm jivite sqshtestva, tolkova
po-vqzvishen e toi. No tova ne oznachava da tqrpi bezmqlvno kogato go machkat,
e, togava moje i da pokaje malko zqbi, da dqrji na razstoianie vqltsite:)))
Haide stiga sqm filosofstvuvala, che toku vij me upreknali v samodovolstvo ili
ne znam oshte kakvo. Otskoro sledia tazi grupa, no mi pravi vpechatlenie, che
ako niakoi izkaje po-interesno mnenie, vinagi se namira niakoi da go zahlupi i
drqpne obratno v kazana, kqdeto vsqshnost mu e miastoto... Nishto lichno kqm
nikogo, i bez tova trudno pomnia imena.
A, dnes e Chinese New Year! Imaha nujda ot malko chetka.
Best wishes,
Lili
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Crazy
<7acstj$jhl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Tozi
>primer go davam samo kato iliustratsia, che pqtishtata do istinata mai sa
>ot niakolko vida - indirektni (chrez nauka, vqzhvala na naukata, nishto
protiv
>neia niamam) i direktni - a kak imenno stava tova?
Indirektno poznavane na sveta stava chrez polzuvane na setivata.
Direknoto poznavane izklyuchva setivata.
Svetqt se sqstoi ot dve ...: Forma i Sqshtnost. Sqshtnostta opredelya
Formata. Chrez poznanie na Formata dostigame do poznanie na Sqshtnostta. No
Formata e predelna, zavisima ot kachestva (chrez setivata) i prehodna.
Formata ni dava samo chastichna, izopachena predstava za Sqshtnostta.
Formite sa mnogo. Sqshtnostta, ot druga strana e bezpredelna, nezavisima ot
kachestva i neprehodna. Sqhstnostta e edna. Direktno vqrzpriemane na
Sqshtnostta e poznanieto i v cyalost, takava kakvato e.
Por ejemplo: Duh e Sqshtnost. Bog e Forma. Tiya dvete sa edno i sqshto
neshto. Bog e Forma ponezhe Bog e s kachestva - Bog e milosqrden,
vseznaesht, sprevedliv i prochee. Obache ponezhe Formite sa mnogo, razlichni
kachestva se pripisvat na Duha (kato Bog) v zavisimost ot narodnost,
istoriya i prochee. Hristiyanskiya Bog ima edni kachestva, evreiskiya Bog -
drugi, mohamedanskiya Bog - treti. Obache tqy kato vsichki Formi vodyat do
ednata, edinstvenata Sqshtnost, vsichki Bogove sa ediniya i edinstveniya
Duh. I zatova mnogo ot kachestvata sa podobni ili napravo edni i sqshti.
Duhqt mozhe da se poznava direktno ...koeto e trudno da se obyasni i malko
sa horata sposobni na podobno poznanie (kakto i samata Vie otbelyasahte).
Nedirektno, Duh se poznava kato Bog, chrez poznavane na kachestvata mu i
izuchavane na sqotvetnata religiya. No podobno poznanie e poznanie na Forma,
i poradi tova e chastichno. Po-pqlno poznanie se postiga ako se poznae
sqshtiya toya Duh pod druga Forma. S drugi dumi, izuchavaneto na edna druga
religiya i poznanieto na Bog s drugi (podobni) kachestva vodi do po-vyarno
poznanie na Duha. I prochee. Obache samo direktniya metod na znanie vodi do
pqlno razbirane na Duha, na Sqshtnostta na Gospoda nash.
>E, iavno ne vseki moje
>da
>ima dostqp do direktnia nachin po edna ili druga prichina, ili stepenta na
>dostqpa moje da varira, a kakto znaete, malkoto znanie e opasno znanie,
>zashtoto s nego moje da se spekulira, da se preuvelichi i drugi podobni.
Ne che e opasno, prosto e chastichno. Naukata, kato poznanie na forma,
zaviseshta ot setivata i razuma, dava samo chastichna, nepqlna predstava za
Sqshtnostta narichana Realnost. No naukata nyama pretencii za neshto drugo.
>Az
>ot godini imam interes kqm, kak da go narechem, mistichnoto, i sqm chela
>knigi po razni vqprosi. Razbira se, da chetesh knigi i da imash experience,
>sa dve razlichni neshta, no vse pak, da rechem intuitsiata me e vodila, if
>you know what I mean.
:-)) Aha, znam kakvo miinvate.
>Ta ot raznite knigi, ot svoeto vqtreshno useshtane i
>t.n. sqm rzbrala, che ima niva na sqshtestvuvanie otvqd realnia physical
>world, i pqrviat e the astral world, sled tova e the causal world etc. Ta,
>znachi, in the astral world ima t. nar. akashic records kqdeto se pazi
>"znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek.
Ima mnogo modeli i nachini na poznanie no vsichki tiya sa poznanie na
nyakakva tam si Forma i poradi tova ne sa osobeno polezni. Modelqt na
razdelenieto na sveta na fizicheski, astralen, i prochee e samo edin ot
mnogoto. Drug edin e dialekticheskiya materializqm. Treti e monizqm. I taka
natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model, to e
samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
<krqc>
>No vodeshta e intuitsiata, dori predi chovek da e v sqstoianie da "vidi",
>ili "chue". V tazi vrqzka, ako J. iska da uznae ISTINATA za bqlgarskata
>istoria, nai-dobre da se stremi da poseti the akashic records,
Malko me sqmnyava che Jeni shte uznae ISTINATA, pa dori i ako se digne v
astralnoto si tyalo i taka poseti Zemyata Na Drevnite Akashici. :-))
>i dokato tova ne
>stane, tia shte triabva da razchita na poznanieto, koeto predlagat
sqvremennite
>istoritsi.
...koeto, bivashto Forma, e mnogoobrazno, osporvano i obqrkvashto,
chastichno i predelno. Za kvo ti e togava takova poznanie?
Ako Jeni naistina iska da znae ISTINATA, tya sigurno shte tryabva da
ostavi istoriyata i istoricite i da se obqrne kqm ...neshto po-direktno.
Vyarno che nishto ne kazah po vqprosa za tova kak tochno stava tova
"direktno poznanie" ama to vsichko na edin pqt ne stava.
S lyubov,
-= Ivan =-
Dimitar Gueorguiev
(dobronamereni i iskreni razmisli)
Hei Lili,
Iavno ne si "starata" Lily , a si edna nova i entusiazirana takava :)
Gotini neshta si napisala i nikak ne si samodovolna daje.
Na men lichno mi pisna ot razsyjdenia na tema cos(fi) i mi e dalech po-interesno
da si govorim za tova kyde svyrshva razionalnoto i kyde zapochva irazionalnoto,
za
Carlos Castaneda, za "Pileto" na William Wharton, za "Perfume" na Patrick
Suskind,
za Jean-Paul Sartre i ujasnite mi istorii, etc.
A, ne moje bez Nietsche i negovata Zaratustra - strahoten pytevoditel za tova kak
da uspee chovek v jivota :) Imam si tuka bylgarskoto izdanie na vyprosnata kniga
(s predgovor ot Isak Pasi).
"Shindler's list" naistina e hubav film, syshto mi haresa "Life is beautiful".
Italianzite mnogo si padat po improvizaziite, nali ? Pri tiah niama razpisanie i
plan,
a ima neveroiatni i elegantini reshenia v poslednia moment. Spored men
izkliuchitelnite sposobnosti na niakoi hora sa pridobiti kato rezultat ot
pregryshtaneto na opredelena filosofia i seriozna rabota. Poslednoto e
neobhodimo uslovie, no ne dostatychno. Triabva da go ima i mnogo silnoto jelanie
za fokusirane v opredelen tesen obhvat i togava mechtite stavat realnost.
>I e mnogo trudno da se
>pretseni dali edin chovek, koito vi kazva, che e bil tam, naistina e bil tam.
Naprotiv, nikak ne e trudno da se zabeleji istinata , no za povecheto hora tia e
potresavashta.
Po otnoshenie na carnivorous character : choveka ne shte da e proizliazyl ot
maimuna, a ot vylk, tigyr ili grizli.
take care,
Dimitar
grg...@my-dejanews.com
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Ta,
> znachi, in the astral world ima t. nar. akashic records kqdeto se pazi
> "znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek. Za niakoi, koito e
> v sqstoianie da "otide tam i prochete", bi mogql da si dostavi vsiaka
> neobhodima informatsia. Razbira se, ne e nujno da viarvate v tova, i
> poniakoga e po-dobre da ne viarvate, zashtoto kolkoto e lesno chovek da
> izpadne v klopka na sobstvenite si ili chujdi sqjdenia po otnoshenie na
> niakoia prirodna nauka, tolkova e po-lesno tova da stane s takiva tqnki
> neshta kato pronikvane do znanieto v po-finite niva. I e mnogo trudno da se
> pretseni dali edin chovek, koito vi kazva, che e bil tam, naistina e bil tam.
Zdrasti, Lili,
Az lichno sym mnogo liubopiten da vidia chovek, koito moje tova. Vidial sym
mnogo, koito pretendirat da go mogat. Tezi ot tiah, koito sa se syglasili da
uchastvat v elementaren eksperiment pred men, sa se provaliali bez nito edno
izkliuchenie.
Zatova i ne viarvam, che tova e taka, ili che e vyzmojno. Gotov sym obache da
reviziram mnenieto si, ako niakoi mi dokaje protivnoto - t.e. ako mi predskaje
neshto ot bydeshteto, koeto e proverimo (kogato stane), no inache ne e
predskazuemo. Sluchaino da poznavate niakoi, koito da bi se osmelil da opita?
Grigor Gatchev
woman...@my-dejanews.com
mlada i entusiazirana!!! :))))
:))))))))))) Dovolna!
Osobeno mi haresva sqvpadenieto na ubejdeniata ni, che
Istinata se poznava glavno chrez INTUICIA, a ne prosto da
viarvash na chujdi prikazki!
Bravo, Lili! Prodqljavay da prosveshtavash bezvernicite na SCB
:))) Uspeh!
J. /I vednaga si priznay kakva zodia si!!!! Zashtoto az sqm
Scorpion, i vse ochakvam gotinite hora da sa sqshto scorpioni
:))/
In article <7acstj$jhl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> ZDraveite, vsichki i nai-veche J./woman_being!
> Tozi primer go davam samo kato iliustratsia, che pqtishtata do istinata mai sa ot
> niakolko vida - indirektni (chrez nauka, vqzhvala na naukata, nishto protiv
> neia niamam) i direktni - a kak imenno stava tova? E, iavno ne vseki moje da
> ima dostqp do direktnia nachin po edna ili druga prichina, ili stepenta na
> dostqpa moje da varira, a kakto znaete, malkoto znanie e opasno znanie,
> zashtoto s nego moje da se spekulira, da se preuvelichi i drugi podobni. Az
> ot godini imam interes kqm, kak da go narechem, mistichnoto, i sqm chela
> knigi po razni vqprosi. Razbira se, da chetesh knigi i da imash experience,
> sa dve razlichni neshta, no vse pak, da rechem intuitsiata me e vodila, if
> you know what I mean. Ta ot raznite knigi, ot svoeto vqtreshno useshtane i
> t.n. sqm rzbrala, che ima niva na sqshtestvuvanie otvqd realnia physical
> world,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Lou Poppler
: >"znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek.
:
: Ima mnogo modeli i nachini na poznanie no vsichki tiya sa poznanie na
: nyakakva tam si Forma i poradi tova ne sa osobeno polezni. Modelqt na
: razdelenieto na sveta na fizicheski, astralen, i prochee e samo edin ot
: mnogoto. Drug edin e dialekticheskiya materializqm. Treti e monizqm. I taka
: natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model, to e
: samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
Very interesting, Ivane!
Modelling, other ignorances too are the basic delusion on earth
and one can transcend the resulting mire of delusion only through
devotion. The cypherpunk community believes that once one is capable
of freeing himself and develops a pointed devotion, he/she receives
the knowledge of the Supreme (Duh) and discovers the secret path of
merger.
Cypherpunks are nothing organized, they would be totally mad if I was
here to discuss them, please, forget that i even mentioned them.
The direct approach?... Hmmm, I think only the virtuous who are
devoted are enable to cross the layer of gunas and merge with the Supreme.
Machines could do it easier, probably. Those who are capable of
surviving the pressure of transformation, probably should be
taught the simple technique of alternating toe touching, russian kicks,
shoulder stand asana or natural meditation and mutual online lag.
I am very interested in your highly secret technique, if it is
available to mankind - my guess is that it is based on the essence
of the entire Vedic learning.
All glory to You
and every bit of information!
Crazy
>:
>: Ima mnogo modeli i nachini na poznanie no vsichki tiya sa poznanie na
>: nyakakva tam si Forma i poradi tova ne sa osobeno polezni. Modelqt na
>: razdelenieto na sveta na fizicheski, astralen, i prochee e samo edin ot
>: mnogoto. Drug edin e dialekticheskiya materializqm. Treti e monizqm. I
taka
>: natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model, to
e
>: samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
>:
> Very interesting, Ivane!
> Modelling, other ignorances too are the basic delusion on earth
>and one can transcend the resulting mire of delusion only through
>devotion.
Yes, devotion is a good way to get there but it isn't "ONLY through
devotion". Devotion is just one way to get a direct experience of the One
(or Supreme, as you call it). It is a convinient method since it is
intuitively understood by anyone and it doesn't require extensive religious
or philosophical understanding of any dogma. Furthermore, it already exists
in practically all religions, if not as Way to Liberation, but rather as a
simple relationship to the Supreme (which, when qualified becomes God). But
even though a devotee may not seek Liberation and may not understand at all
the concepts of bondage and duality (since they are Eastern concepts
anyhow), the final result, a direct relationship with God (understanding the
Supreme), in various extends can and is accomplished. Hence it's popularity.
One shortcoming of this method is that devotion often is associated with
simplicity, backwardness, low classes (castes), even fanaticism. In our
"modern age", it is rather difficult to be asking for devotion (towards God,
usually) when too many people do not believe in God and the ones who say
they do, don't mean anything by it.
Another problem with devotion is that there is the possibility for the
aspirant not to want a final emancipation because that means a complete
union with God and thus God would cease to exist as a object of worship (as
a result of the destruction of duality and true realization of the One). The
devotee however loves her God so much that she wouldn't want for that
happening. ...Ok, I admit that it is a rather technical problem and it
appears only at such an advanced stage that few would ever have to worry
about it, :-))) but it still exists. Most importantly, devotion towards God
(especially in people outside the Bhakti tradition) is for the sake of God,
or for the sake of the devotee, or for the sake of the dogma or simply out
of habit and usually it never reaches the intensity required for some more
substantial spiritual growth. And that's a problem, particularly in the
Judaic based religions where Salvation is spoken as something that comes
from the out and not from within.
>The cypherpunk community believes that once one is capable
>of freeing himself and develops a pointed devotion, he/she receives
>the knowledge of the Supreme (Duh) and discovers the secret path of
>merger.
> Cypherpunks are nothing organized, they would be totally mad if I was
>here to discuss them, please, forget that i even mentioned them.
Why not discuss them? Never heard of them and they sound interesting.
>The direct approach?... Hmmm, I think only the virtuous who are
>devoted are enable to cross the layer of gunas and merge with the Supreme.
>Machines could do it easier, probably. Those who are capable of
>surviving the pressure of transformation, probably should be
>taught the simple technique of alternating toe touching, russian kicks,
>shoulder stand asana or natural meditation and mutual online lag.
>I am very interested in your highly secret technique, if it is
>available to mankind - my guess is that it is based on the essence
>of the entire Vedic learning.
Highly secret technique? Well, no - I ain't got it. I don't even have a
technique. But you're right about the essence of Vedic learning thingy. The
closest I can classify myself would be as a follower of Advaita Vedanta,
which one can argue *is* the essece of the Vedas, their highest teaching.
Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings and
that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess. Whatever
the case, it was that teaching which put things together for me, tied up all
my previous efforts, made sense of it all and pushed me in the right
direction.
...Well, I do have a secret teaching, available to womankind and mankind
alike, but I can't disclose it publicly and for free. You'll have to sign up
for the program, visit the ashram, get approved, pay your fees, worship and
work hard everyday ...then maybe I'll tell you a lil' bit. :-))))) Of
course, you'll have to pay your fees!
>All glory to You
Right. Whatever... You too! :-))
AUMMMMMMMMMMmmmm, babe.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
aka Swami Mama
woman...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Mqdrost! Mqdrost!
Ooo, Crazy! 10x!
Mnogo priatno me iznenada i zaradva s lekciata si.
Da si priznaya, kato zaplashvashe da ya iznesesh - malko se
popritesnih, che shte se raznese pak niakoya patetichna
slavoslovia na opredelena religia. I mnogo se radvam, che ne e!!!
Iznenada me i drugo - che ne sqm sreshtala nikqde dosega
"neshtata" podneseni taka chisto, oprosteno i "nauchno". Bi li mi
kazal ot kakvi istochnici cherpish mqdrost? :))
Ot edna strana mi beshe mnogo priatno da otkriya, che sama
sqm stignala do tochno takiva zakliuchenia, kakvito ti izvednaj
podnese, formulirani do chistotata na Zakon.
Ot druga strana mi stana dosadno, che godini sqm pqlziala
bavno nagore, nagore kqm otkritiata si, a te v tova vreme sa si
sediali nay-spokoyno i definirano - veroyatno ot vekove :((((((
Nachinqt, po koyto gi predavash naviava IZTOCHNI asociacii?
No ne indiyski. Prilichat na kitayski, no pqk chak dotolkova
izchisteni ot fanatizqm i naivnost???
Taka che priznavay - koi sa ti nastolnite iztochnici! Pomogni na
neshtastnata jertva na doskoroshnata bezinformacia na
BgMade_Beingite da se dokosnat nay-posle do Iztochnicite.
Ostanaloto, za Akashkite zapiski i podobnite tainstveni i
zagadqchni, no prekaleno populiarno-reklamni tvqrdenia sa mi
poznati. Priemam gi, zashtoto ne vednaj mi se e sluchvalo da
predusetia niakoi sqbitia.
No oshte mi lipsva glavnata sxema. Az si sqzdadoh neshto
podobno na takava - spomenavala sqm Materiata poniakoga -
no taka, kakto ti ya predade, kratko i yasno, mi dopadna.
Ne se skqpi na informacia!
BTW, kakvo shte kajesh za religiata na Bahaite? Az vednaj
razkazah za simpatiite si kqm tehnite obshtochoveshki religiozni
razbirania - sega se zaradvah da vidia na BG cial site za tiah -
no uvi! - ne moga da go cheta. :(((
A sqshto mi e mnogo interesno da chuya neshto za tolkova
"modernata" religia, koyato may predpochita samo
bogatashite!!! :)))))) - i za koyato se govori, che e privliakla
nay-interesni lichnosti - napr. John Travolta, Tom Cruise -
scintilogiata. Nishto ne sqm chela za neya, a mi e interesno
kakqv ray predlagat na bogatashite, ta taka silno gi privlicha?
Che chak da si plashtat, za da viarvat v Boga.
Za yudaizma kato Vqnshna, a ne Vqtreshna religia sqm
sqglasna. S ugovorkata, che te sa "iznamerili" vse pak Kaballata i
fakticheski sa formulirali i takiva vseobshti tqlkovania i zakoni,
kakvito ti sega razkaza. Zatova pak napomniam da se otdelia
religiata kato masova terapia, ot Poznanieto, koeto tia sqdqrja.
Ima mnogo stepeni na poznanie i v evreyskata. /Smeshno mi e
da ya narichate Yudaizqm. Za men tova e neshto razlichno. Tuk
horata ne viarvat v Yudeystvo, a v Evreystvo. Terminqt
"Judaistic" se sreshta predimno v prevodi na angliyski, a te
niamat druga duma za evrei - i, osobeno v posledno vreme,
veche oznachava prosto niakakvo psevdo-izkustvo, koeto se
prodava za suveniri po turisticheskite traseta./
Men - kazvala sqm veche - nikoya otdelna religia ne me
zadovoliava - nito kato logika, nito kato potrebnost, no im
ostaviam pravoto i veroyatnostta da imat i skriti ot obiknovenite
hora poznania.
Da bqde!
A inache - kakto vijdam horata s dobro chuvstvo za humor sa si
sortovi :))) Gordeya se s teb! Bravo!
J.
Crazy
<7ajelo$99s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7afoq4$j9h$4...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Mqdrost! Mqdrost!
>
>Ooo, Crazy! 10x!
Kakto starata amerikanska poslovica i pogovorka kazva: "full of wisdom
like a duck with warm shit".
>Mnogo priatno me iznenada i zaradva s lekciata si.
Priyatno mi e che ti e priyatno ot moyta lekciya. Na povecheto hora
obiknoveno takiva lekcii im prichinyavat glavobolie ...ili im deystvuvat
kato
prispivatelno. :-))
>Iznenada me i drugo - che ne sqm sreshtala nikqde dosega
>"neshtata" podneseni taka chisto, oprosteno i "nauchno". Bi li mi
>kazal ot kakvi istochnici cherpish mqdrost? :))
S risk da prozvucha neskromen tryabva da spodelya che ne cherpya mqdrost
ot opredeleni iztochnici. S drugi dumi, taya filosofiya deto ya
filosovstvuvam si e moya, barabar s terminologiyata ( s yavnite
izklyucheniya).
Razbira se, nishto novo ne kazvam i razbira se che
sqm povliyan ot otdavna izvestni idei i teorii (ako imash predvid tiya ot
koito sqm povliyan, vizh po-dolu), no nikoya ot tyah sama po sebe si ne me
zadovoli napqlno. Taka che tryabvashe da si napravya moya si.
"Neshtata" sa podneseni taka, ponezhe tova e edinstveniya nachin po
koyto az moga da gi razbera. Kolkoto za "nauchno" ...ne znam. :-)) Po
obrazovanie sqm inzhiner (osven yurist), ta mozhe ottam da e.
>Ot edna strana mi beshe mnogo priatno da otkriya, che sama
>sqm stignala do tochno takiva zakliuchenia, kakvito ti izvednaj
>podnese, formulirani do chistotata na Zakon.
Chak pqk za Zakon... Ti da ne bi sega da mi pravish chetki narochno i da
me bqzikash? :-))
A kolkoto do zaklyucheniyata, te vinagi sa si edni i sqshti. Nyama drug
nachin. Deto horata kazvat, "pqteki mnogo, a vqrhqt edin". Vsichki do takiva
zaklyucheniya stigat, rano ili kqsno, v edna ili druga forma. Problemqt e v
tova che horata sa
razlichni i se izrazyavat razlichno, no smisqlqt e edin. Cakata e da mozhe
da zagreesh che tova koeto kazvat e sqshtoto koeto i ti kazvash, no
terminologiyata e razlichna, modelqt e drug.
>Ot druga strana mi stana dosadno, che godini sqm pqlziala
>bavno nagore, nagore kqm otkritiata si, a te v tova vreme sa si
>sediali nay-spokoyno i definirano - veroyatno ot vekove :((((((
Ne. Nishto ne sedi definirano ot vekove. Bez pqlzene ne mozhe. Nyama
sqmnenie che horata sa "otkrivali" i "definirali" sqshtoto tova koeto i nie
sega otrkivame i definirame, no te sa si gi otkrivali i definirali za tyah
si, kakto i nie za nas si. Vyarno, napisali sa te sveshtenite knigi, kakto i
nie sega si pishem (nesveshtenni) prashtulki, s nadezhdata che i drugi mozhe
bi da "zagreyat", no to zagryavaneto taka ne stava. Chetesh, chetesh...
potish se, potish se (da go razberesh)... posle pak chetesh ...posle se
napiesh i psuvash, posle chetesh... i se mqchish da otkriesh za kakvo
tochno, adzheba, govoryat tiya i hem ti e yasno, hem ne. Gorchivata istina
e che kolkoto i umni da sa tiya hora, kolkoto i sladkodumni da sa i kolkoto
i prosto i yasno e tova koeto go pishat (i govoryat), ti sama ako ne mozhesh
da gi definirash i otkriesh za sebe si tiya raboti, fayda nyama. Cyaloto
tvoe znanie si ostava intelektualno - demek, znaesh i razbirash za tova za
koeto govoryat, ama v sqrceto si cherveycheto prodqlzhava da te yade. Bez
pqlzene ne stava.
...Hubavo e ako mozhesh da namerish nyakoy koyto sqshto e pqlzayal i
koyto gi razbira tiya neshta, che da mozhe da te butne da pqlzish v
pravilnata nasoka, no kakto Lili kaza, ryadki sa tiya hora po zemyata, pa
tochno ti da mozhesh da gi sreshtnesh i te ot teb da se zainteresuvat e
pochti nevqzmozhno. Ta vmesto tyah, chetesh knizhki, slushash lekciyki s
nadezhdata barem neshtichko mqnichko da te ogree ...koeto i stava, ot vreme
na vreme. No taka ili inache, pqlzenieto si ostava tvoe si.
>Nachinqt, po koyto gi predavash naviava IZTOCHNI asociacii?
>No ne indiyski. Prilichat na kitayski, no pqk chak dotolkova
>izchisteni ot fanatizqm i naivnost???
Brqkna s prqst bash v ranata. Izklychitelno prava si - i za iztochnite
asociacii i za fanatizqm i naivnost.
Nay-rannite iztochnici (che pqk i nay-kqsnite) koito sa me povliyali sa
iztochnite. Pochnah s Yoga i ya praktikuvah godini nared. Posle minah prez
kitaycite i yaponcite i vzeh da se zanimavam s Taoizqm i Zen, ta pokray tyah
i s boyni izkustva. Minah prez edin period na Tantra, Vishnuizqm, Shivaizqm
i Lamaizqm... dokato ya dokaram do g-zha ti Blavatska i zapadnite
"mistici" - individualni dushi, kosmicheski dushi, Brahmani, auri, samsari,
nirvani, bogove i bogini, razhdaniya i prerazhdaniya... sqsipaha me tiya
religii. Mnogo simvoli, mnogo naivitet... Motah se kato muha bez glava suma
ti vreme. Posle dopryah do sqvremennata nauka i pochnah da cheta kingi po
fizika, himiya i biologiya ....dokato stignah do fizika na elementarnite
chastici, kvantovi teorii i prochee (tochno togava sledvah inzhinerstvo ta
mozheh da se spravyam s visshata matematika), i ottam do nay-velikite hora
na sqvremennata nauka, koito pqk se okaza v krayna smetka che propovyadvat
idei mnogo blizki do iztochnite. Nyakoi ot tyah napravo si go priznavaha.
...I hayde pak obratno do Iztoka.
I taka se motah dokato nay-posle opryah do Vivekananda i Yogananda, a ot
tyah - do uchitelite im. A ot tyah do edna malko poznata filosofiya
narichana Advayta Vedanta, koeto e nay-chista proyava na monizqm. V
sqshtnost, zvuchi mnogo blizko do Taoizqm. (Koyato, v krayna smetka, kazva
sqshtoto koeto go kazva i Stephen Hawkins - edin ot nya-blestyashtite fizici
na sqvremeto ni.) Demek, vsichki za edno i sqshto neshto govoryat. Obache,
ponezhe indiycite sa si indiyci, pak si prikazvat za samsari, Brahmani i
prochee slozhni, nerazbiraemi i nenuzhni za men teorii, dori i kato govoryat
za monizqm. No nezavisimo ot tova, ednichkoto neshto koeto razbrah ot
Vedanta e ideyata za Edinstvo. Ottam natatqk, neshtata pochnaha da se
izyasnyavat i vsichkite tiya raboti koito me tormoziha predi, pochnaha da mi
stavat yasni (ili znachitelno po-yasni otkolkoto v minaloto). I ot celiya
tozi gyuvech, az si izrabotih edna sistema, lichno za men si, che i az
nay-posle da miryasam. I tova si e.
>Taka che priznavay - koi sa ti nastolnite iztochnici!
Vizh po-gore.
Zabravih da spomena Bhatki Yoga i Aikido. Ama i dvete trudno se opisvat,
ta nyama i da se zahvashtam, oshte poveche che te sa izklyuchitelno praktika
a ne teoriya.
>No oshte mi lipsva glavnata sxema. Az si sqzdadoh neshto
>podobno na takava - spomenavala sqm Materiata poniakoga -
>no taka, kakto ti ya predade, kratko i yasno, mi dopadna.
>
>Ne se skqpi na informacia!
Glavnata shema tvoya tryabva da si e. Kvoto i da ti kazha, puknata para
ne chini ako nyakak si ti ne ya pretvorish v neshto lichno tvoe si. Yasno mi
e che tova zvuchi mnogo tendenciozno i shablonno, no ne znam kak da se
izrazya po drug nachin.
Az ako tryabva moyta glavna shema da ya opisha, edna-dve prashtulki
nyama da sa dostatqchni. Sigurno shte e edna obemna kniga.
>BTW, kakvo shte kajesh za religiata na Bahaite? Az vednaj
>razkazah za simpatiite si kqm tehnite obshtochoveshki religiozni
>razbirania - sega se zaradvah da vidia na BG cial site za tiah -
>no uvi! - ne moga da go cheta. :(((
Mnogo hubava religiya. Ako tryabva da izbiram ot religiozni hora,
Bahaite shte sa pqrvi v spisqka!
>Za yudaizma kato Vqnshna, a ne Vqtreshna religia sqm
>sqglasna. S ugovorkata, che te sa "iznamerili" vse pak Kaballata i
>fakticheski sa formulirali i takiva vseobshti tqlkovania i zakoni,
>kakvito ti sega razkaza. Zatova pak napomniam da se otdelia
>religiata kato masova terapia, ot Poznanieto, koeto tia sqdqrja.
>Ima mnogo stepeni na poznanie i v evreyskata. /Smeshno mi e
>da ya narichate Yudaizqm. Za men tova e neshto razlichno. Tuk
>horata ne viarvat v Yudeystvo, a v Evreystvo. Terminqt
>"Judaistic" se sreshta predimno v prevodi na angliyski, a te
>niamat druga duma za evrei - i, osobeno v posledno vreme,
>veche oznachava prosto niakakvo psevdo-izkustvo, koeto se
>prodava za suveniri po turisticheskite traseta./
Kato kazah za "Judaic tradition" imah predvid hristiyanstvoto,
mohamedanstvoto i evreystvoto (kato religiya), v segashniya im vid.
Lou Poppler
: Another problem with devotion is that there is the possibility for the
: aspirant not to want a final emancipation because that means a complete
: union with God and thus God would cease to exist as a object of worship (as
: a result of the destruction of duality and true realization of the One). The
: devotee however loves her God so much that she wouldn't want for that
: happening. ...Ok, I admit that it is a rather technical problem and it
: but it still exists>>
For technicalities sake only, :):):):) - kazvat,che tozi problem vsqshtnost
ne sqshtestvuva. Kazvat, che na tozi advanced stage :), veche ne e izbor na
devotee, a Supreme(One, Duh, whatever...) reshava dali prodqljavash s
final emancipation ili se vrqshtash ne po-dolu ot 4-ta chakra ili
niakakvo nivo , v zavisimost ot sistemata,koito si si
izgradil , za da pomognesh na drugi i da gi uchish. Pishat sqshto,,
che vsichko vsqshtnost v kraina smetka e shega, koeto predpolagam, che ti e
haresalo kato idea, navremeto ,kato si minaval prez tezi
stranizi:) Ne znam dali ti vijdash protivorechie(logichesko), s
tezata, che na tova visoko nivo, kato preminesh prez stepenite na Soul:
Self, God i aha da si enlighted ili vqv "final emancipation", vsqshtnost
ti ne reshavash sam i ne e tvoi izbor. Ne kazvam, che sa pisali horata i
drugi, che tova stava posledovatelno i lineino v niakakva stqlbiza
ili red, razbira se i ne se zastqpva ili smesva vsichko, i che niama
obmen na , hmmm, kak da se izrazia, energia da rechem , ot
po-visoki niva, v po-niski(visoki i niski, sashto kato mnogo otnositelni
kategorii, razbira se). Chuvah ot dvama razlichni, beloved Swamiji's :):),
che Stephen Hawking, vapreki, che e mnogo advanced po otnoshenie na
mental, intelect, ego dori, niama mnogo silen energien obmen sqs Soul,
no tova e Boja rabota , razbira se, az estestveno ne moga da
prezenia dali ima rezon v tova. Te sashto smiatat, che Einstein e
imal tochno tozi tip obmen i e bil mnogo dobqr psychic, koeto men me
smushtava, misleiki za problemite s Poankare(bulg.spelling:) ).
Az se trevojeh,che Hawking niama da ima fizicheskata sila to survive
the pressure of transformation, ako ima takava. Te, estestveno,
v tehnite si zennostni i boji sistemi biaha ubedeni,che toi triabva
da premine prez poveche prerajdania za da ima ne samo intelekta, no i
silno fizicheski tialo to absorb the new force without discomfort.
Ah, sqjeliavam che pisah tolkova mnogo, ne sqm chela grupata mnogo ,mnogo
otdavna i sqm mnogo shtastliva, che si tuk i si vse oshte sane:), maybe:)
Shte napishesh li neshto poveche za Energiata?:) Sigurna sqm ,che
shte bqde pak edna ot nai-chetenite prashtulki.
Iskrenno tvoia,
kakto vinagi
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Lou Poppler wrote in message <7afbnk$jqe$1...@ink.msen.com>...
> >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:40:41 -0500, Crazy (iv...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >: >"znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek.
> >:
> >: Ima mnogo modeli i nachini na poznanie no vsichki tiya sa poznanie na
> >: nyakakva tam si Forma i poradi tova ne sa osobeno polezni. Modelqt na
> >: razdelenieto na sveta na fizicheski, astralen, i prochee e samo edin ot
> >: mnogoto. Drug edin e dialekticheskiya materializqm. Treti e monizqm. I
> taka
> >: natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model, to
> e
> >: samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
Dobre kazano, ot mislesht chovek. NO priznai sam, che svetqt e pqlen s
ogranichenia bez tova i nezavisimo dali nie priznavame edna istina ili ne, tia
sqshtestvuva...
> > Very interesting, Ivane!
> > Modelling, other ignorances too are the basic delusion on earth
> >and one can transcend the resulting mire of delusion only through
> >devotion.
> Yes, devotion is a good way to get there but it isn't "ONLY through
> devotion". Devotion is just one way to get a direct experience of the One
> (or Supreme, as you call it). It is a convinient method since it is
> intuitively understood by anyone and it doesn't require extensive religious
> or philosophical understanding of any dogma. Furthermore, it already exists
> in practically all religions, if not as Way to Liberation, but rather as a
> simple relationship to the Supreme (which, when qualified becomes God). But
> even though a devotee may not seek Liberation and may not understand at all
> the concepts of bondage and duality (since they are Eastern concepts
> anyhow), the final result, a direct relationship with God (understanding the
> Supreme), in various extends can and is accomplished. Hence it's popularity.
> One shortcoming of this method is that devotion often is associated with
> simplicity, backwardness, low classes (castes), even fanaticism. In our
> "modern age", it is rather difficult to be asking for devotion (towards God,
> usually) when too many people do not believe in God and the ones who say
> they do, don't mean anything by it.
The simplest things in life might be the most powerful, in a spiritual sense.
> Another problem with devotion is that there is the possibility for the
> aspirant not to want a final emancipation because that means a complete
> union with God and thus God would cease to exist as a object of worship (as
> a result of the destruction of duality and true realization of the One). The
> devotee however loves her God so much that she wouldn't want for that
> happening. ...Ok, I admit that it is a rather technical problem and it
> appears only at such an advanced stage that few would ever have to worry
> about it, :-))) but it still exists. Most importantly, devotion towards God
> (especially in people outside the Bhakti tradition) is for the sake of God,
> or for the sake of the devotee, or for the sake of the dogma or simply out
> of habit and usually it never reaches the intensity required for some more
> substantial spiritual growth. And that's a problem, particularly in the
> Judaic based religions where Salvation is spoken as something that comes
> from the out and not from within.
Devotion and love for God are God's grace, one cannot aquire them by will.
It's true that this age is more or less oblivious to devotion and following
God's will (that's why it's referred to as the Iron Age, or Kal Yuga) but
it's just a matter of expanding one's Self, not of losing one self.
> >The cypherpunk community believes that once one is capable
> >of freeing himself and develops a pointed devotion, he/she receives
> >the knowledge of the Supreme (Duh) and discovers the secret path of
> >merger.
> > Cypherpunks are nothing organized, they would be totally mad if I was
> >here to discuss them, please, forget that i even mentioned them.
>
> Why not discuss them? Never heard of them and they sound interesting.
Non-organized, that sounds good.
> >The direct approach?... Hmmm, I think only the virtuous who are
> >devoted are enable to cross the layer of gunas and merge with the Supreme.
> >Machines could do it easier, probably. Those who are capable of
> >surviving the pressure of transformation, probably should be
> >taught the simple technique of alternating toe touching, russian kicks,
> >shoulder stand asana or natural meditation and mutual online lag.
> >I am very interested in your highly secret technique, if it is
> >available to mankind - my guess is that it is based on the essence
> >of the entire Vedic learning.
Hey, this sounds very much New Age-like.
> Highly secret technique? Well, no - I ain't got it. I don't even have a
> technique. But you're right about the essence of Vedic learning thingy. The
> closest I can classify myself would be as a follower of Advaita Vedanta,
> which one can argue *is* the essece of the Vedas, their highest teaching.
> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings and
> that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess. Whatever
> the case, it was that teaching which put things together for me, tied up all
> my previous efforts, made sense of it all and pushed me in the right
> direction.
> ...Well, I do have a secret teaching, available to womankind and mankind
> alike, but I can't disclose it publicly and for free. You'll have to sign up
> for the program, visit the ashram, get approved, pay your fees, worship and
> work hard everyday ...then maybe I'll tell you a lil' bit. :-))))) Of
> course, you'll have to pay your fees!
>
Ivane, could you explain what Advaita Vedanta is? And one more thing, be
careful of ashrams that charge you money. A true teching/teacher wouldn't
charge you anything for their spiritual services, trust me on that one.
> aka Swami Mama
What does the "aka" stand for? Is it a Mama who takes care of the poopy state
of mind of her children, by any chance? (just kidding) All the best! Lili
Crazy
the
>: aspirant not to want a final emancipation because that means a complete
>: union with God and thus God would cease to exist as a object of worship
(as
>: a result of the destruction of duality and true realization of the One).
The
>: devotee however loves her God so much that she wouldn't want for that
>: happening. ...Ok, I admit that it is a rather technical problem and it
> : but it still exists>>
> For technicalities sake only, :):):):) - kazvat,che tozi problem
vsqshtnost
>ne sqshtestvuva. Kazvat, che na tozi advanced stage :), veche ne e izbor
na
>devotee, a Supreme(One, Duh, whatever...) reshava dali prodqljavash s
>final emancipation
From a dualistic standpoint of view, God's grace probably would have
something to do with it. But note that at the moment of emancipation (that
is, about achieving unity with God, about non-dualism), God as such cease to
exist. You are Her and Her decisions are your decisions, insofar as there
can be even a talk about decisions, which there can't. Being One, there's
nobody to decide and there's nothing to be decided on. The Self (being one
and the same as the Supreme) is ever free and ever emancipated anyway. It is
just that this fact needs to be realized. Therefore to argue that one needs
God's grace in order to realize that she *is* God is something that doesn't
make much sense.
Here's what Narada Bhakti Sutras has to say on the issue:
"3. And in its own intrinsic nature, Divine Love is nothing less than
the immortal bliss of freedom (Mukti) itself, which comes unsolicited by the
grace of God and by self-sacrifies."
Obviously, they are taking the dualistic approach (since any scripture,
by its nature, is written for the benefit of the ignorant ones, the
dualists :-)), and it advocates both a God's grace concept as well as
personal effort (self-sacrifice), which is a little bit hard to understand.
Once a pupil has asked Ramakrishna about that: if liberation is the
result of pure effort or by the grace of God alone. He had replied something
to the fact that the human condition is similar to a dog tied to a chain.
The dog has a certain freedom within the link of that chain, to pursue his
own interests, but he can't go beyond his own chain. Only his Master can
turn him lose. Similarly a man (or a woman) is tied to the world-appearances
by the chain called Illusion, and it is up to his Master, God, to let him
lose. But unless the dog demonstrates that he wants out of the chain, by
pulling it or whatever, ...his Master may never let him lose.
But, again, that assumes that the notions of bondage and liberations are
taken as an objectively existing realities and given the background of
Ramakrishna's students (they were all young, idealistic Hindus, used to
worship a divine entity of some kind - Shiva and Vishnu, mainly), he
probably thought that this
explaination is best for them. I personally have no inclination for the
worship of a divine entity of any kind (usually - but there are certain
times when I get the urge), so the monistic approach makes more sense for
me. ...Whatever blows your skirts up.
If Ramakrishna was teaching someone who had the natural predisposition
and ability to understand non-duality, he would have continued with: but the
chain exists only in the mind of the dog, because, being ignorant dog, he
thinks that there's something called "chain" that keeps him tied and there's
someone called Master, to untie him. In reality, there's neither chain nor
Master and the dog is a slave of his own delusion.
Ili, kakto kazvat Sutrite:
"30. But Narada says that the spiritual realization is its own fruit."
It is interesting the Ramakrishna had no set teaching (he had divine
inspirations and various spiritual experiences from many teachings) and he
taught each of his students differently, depending on the student's
temperament and spiritual capacities. It was only Vivekananda that was
taught Advaita
Vedanta early on, and it is said that Vivekananda hated it then and
understood it
only much later.
>ili se vrqshtash ne po-dolu ot 4-ta chakra ili
>niakakvo nivo , v zavisimost ot sistemata,koito si si
>izgradil , za da pomognesh na drugi i da gi uchish. Pishat sqshto,,
>che vsichko vsqshtnost v kraina smetka e shega, koeto predpolagam, che ti e
>haresalo kato idea, navremeto ,kato si minaval prez tezi
>stranizi:) Ne znam dali ti vijdash protivorechie(logichesko), s
>tezata, che na tova visoko nivo, kato preminesh prez stepenite na Soul:
>Self, God i aha da si enlighted ili vqv "final emancipation", vsqshtnost
>ti ne reshavash sam i ne e tvoi izbor.
Protivorechiya mnogo ponezhe modelite sa mnogo i s razlichna
teoretichna osnova, a horata neprekqsnato gi meshat.
Bhakti Yoga naprimer se schita "post-classical Yoga",
tqy kato e sled sistemata na Patanjali. Klasicheskata Yoga, naprimer, kazva
che emancipaciya e ne samo vqzmozhna no i predpochitana kato rezultat ot
lichnite usiliya na edin chovek i ideyata za Bog e nenuzhna. Obache, v
sqshtoto vreme, Patanjali kazva che e vqzmozhna emancipaciya i chrez
namesata na Bog (Ishvara). Tqy kato Bhakti e sistema glavno i predimno na
lyubov kqm Bog, yasno e che te shte postavyat udarenieto ne na
individualnite usiliya na chovek, a na zhelanieto na Bog. No i te ne
otrichat che emancipaciya e vqzmozhna samo chrez lichni usiliya:
"24. But the Supreme Divine Love described before is also something more
than Karma, Jnana and Yoga"
Karma e "rabota" no tuk dumata e v smisql na "akt, usqrdie" - stava
vqpros za teoriyata che edin chovek tryabva da e trudolyubiv, dobqr,
moralen, i prochee za da se prerodi po-bogat i po-umen, ili da otide v
Rayskite Gradini: takqv podhod e podhodyasht za masite koito sa po-tqpichki
:-)) i ne zhelayat nishto drugo.
Jnana e "znanie" - stava vqpros za Advayta-Vedanta.
Yoga si e yoga - stava vqpros za klasicheskata sistema na Patanjali.
"27. And because God's dislikes the reliance of one's own unaided
self-effort, and likes the complete feeling of misery due to the
consciousness of one's helplessness in independently working out one's
salvation, Bhakti is greater".
S drugi dumi, mozhe da se postigne emancipaciya samo chrez lichni
usiliya, obache po-hubavo e da se oblegnesh izcyalo na Bog, ponezhe ne Neya
i e kef da se mqchish i da zavisish ot Neya. :-))
>Ne kazvam, che sa pisali horata i
>drugi, che tova stava posledovatelno i lineino v niakakva stqlbiza
>ili red, razbira se i ne se zastqpva ili smesva vsichko, i che niama
>obmen na , hmmm, kak da se izrazia, energia da rechem , ot
>po-visoki niva, v po-niski(visoki i niski, sashto kato mnogo otnositelni
>kategorii, razbira se). Chuvah ot dvama razlichni, beloved Swamiji's :):),
>che Stephen Hawking, vapreki, che e mnogo advanced po otnoshenie na
>mental, intelect, ego dori, niama mnogo silen energien obmen sqs Soul,
>no tova e Boja rabota , razbira se, az estestveno ne moga da
>prezenia dali ima rezon v tova. Te sashto smiatat, che Einstein e
>imal tochno tozi tip obmen i e bil mnogo dobqr psychic, koeto men me
>smushtava, misleiki za problemite s Poankare(bulg.spelling:) ).
Nyamam prakticheski opit po otnoshenie na energiyni obmeni mezhdu
dushite i Bog
ta ne moga da komentiram. Ama i tiya svami malko me
sqmnyavat: otkqde pqk te da znayat kakvi sa im energiite na Einstein and
Hawking??
>Az se trevojeh,che Hawking niama da ima fizicheskata sila to survive
>the pressure of transformation, ako ima takava.
Ne se trevozhi, sladkishche moe, Stefcho shte go prezhivee!
V sqshtnost sigurno shte e hubavo da go izkomentiram toya vqpros.
Ideyata za tova che povecheto hora ne sa sposobni da minat prez opredelena
duhovna transformaciya idva glavno ot dualistichnite sistemi - Yoga, na
pqrvo myasto. Vsyaka edna podobna transformaciya vodi do unizhtozhavane na
dvuznachnosti i postigane na Edinstvo ...koeto e dosta obqrkvashto i
strashno za nepodgotveniya. Ta ako ne preminesh prez opredelena podgotovka
(yama, niyama i prochee moralni i etichni praktiki) i opredeleni meditacii i
umstveni uprazhnenie, shte poludeesh. Obache drugi sistemi (Advayta,
Taoizmqt i Zen, naprimer) vqobshte ne uchat dualizqm i ot samoto nachalo
nablyagat na fakta za Edinstvo i za nenuzhnostta ot dqlboki filosofii i
slozhni teorii.
Horata koito sledvat edno takova uchenie nyama da se stresnat osobeno, dori
i da preminat prez nyakakva si transformaciya.
Stefcho Hawking, si e dualist-chovek, kato vsichki ostanali ucheni, no
pipeto mu seche mnogo yako i ponezhe dopuska za vqzmozhni neshta za koito
drugi ucheni ne iskat i da chuyat (pqk i da chuyat, ne gi ogryava),
predpolagam che toy shte go prezhivee.
>Te, estestveno,
>v tehnite si zennostni i boji sistemi biaha ubedeni,che toi triabva
>da premine prez poveche prerajdania za da ima ne samo intelekta, no i
>silno fizicheski tialo to absorb the new force without discomfort.
Vqprosqt e ne tolkoz do tyalo, kolkoto do psihika. Argumentqt e che
silno tyalo vodi do silna psihika i zatova ne e losho da se zanimavame s
neshto kato Hatha Yoga, da rechem. Ot druga strana, ima hora koito sa si
rodeni sqs silna psihika (ili sa si ludi po rozhdenie), taka che za tyah
tiya asani i prerazhdaniya ne sa osobeno nuzhni.
>Ah, sqjeliavam che pisah tolkova mnogo, ne sqm chela grupata mnogo ,mnogo
>otdavna i sqm mnogo shtastliva, che si tuk i si vse oshte sane:), maybe:)
Blagodarya.
Being crazy keeps me sane.
>Shte napishesh li neshto poveche za Energiata?:) Sigurna sqm ,che
>shte bqde pak edna ot nai-chetenite prashtulki.
>Iskrenno tvoia,
Iskrena moya, ne znam za koya Energiya tochno stava duma: za prana li,
za kundalini li, za ki ili za chi, ili za neshto drugo i kakvo tochno
iskash da znaesh za neya. I zashto?
Shtoto ako iskash da imash nyakakvi izvqn-zemni prezhivyavaniya i da
levitirash, da pqtuvash umstveno do Mars, da predskazvash bqdeshteto i da
minavash prez steni, nyama nishto da ti kazha, shtoto tiya izgqzici ne sa
Bogu mili.
S lyubov,
Iskreno tvoy,
-= Swami Mama =-
Crazy
<7aq2gm$lbr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>>: natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model,
to
>>>: e samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
>
>Dobre kazano, ot mislesht chovek. NO priznai sam, che svetqt e pqlen s
>ogranichenia bez tova i nezavisimo dali nie priznavame edna istina ili ne,
tia
>sqshtestvuva...
Ne moga da go priznaya ponezhe ne go vyarvam. No tova e moe lichno
razbirane po vqprosa i ako drugi ne go spodelyat, ne me trevozhi osobeno.
>> Another problem with devotion is that there is the possibility for
the
>> aspirant not to want a final emancipation because that means a complete
>> union with God and thus God would cease to exist as a object of worship
(as
>> a result of the destruction of duality and true realization of the One).
The
>> devotee however loves her God so much that she wouldn't want for that
>> happening. ...Ok, I admit that it is a rather technical problem and it
>> appears only at such an advanced stage that few would ever have to worry
>> about it, :-))) but it still exists. Most importantly, devotion towards
God
>> (especially in people outside the Bhakti tradition) is for the sake of
God,
>> or for the sake of the devotee, or for the sake of the dogma or simply
out
>> of habit and usually it never reaches the intensity required for some
more
>> substantial spiritual growth. And that's a problem, particularly in the
>> Judaic based religions where Salvation is spoken as something that comes
>> from the out and not from within.
>
>Devotion and love for God are God's grace, one cannot aquire them by will.
The problem with understanding the concept of God's grace is that people
get complacent and think that because it is God's grace that will deliver
them, they don't have to do anything special about it. It's the "lazy man's
guide to elightenment" philosophy - drink your beer, eat your peanuts and if
God decides to save you, She will do so in Her own time. There are obvious
difficulties with such an approach.
>It's true that this age is more or less oblivious to devotion and following
>God's will (that's why it's referred to as the Iron Age, or Kal Yuga) but
>it's just a matter of expanding one's Self, not of losing one self.
Expending one's Self and losing one's Self are exactly one and the same
thing.
>> >The cypherpunk community believes that once one is capable
>> >of freeing himself and develops a pointed devotion, he/she receives
>> >the knowledge of the Supreme (Duh) and discovers the secret path of
>> >merger.
>> > Cypherpunks are nothing organized, they would be totally mad if I was
>> >here to discuss them, please, forget that i even mentioned them.
>>
>> Why not discuss them? Never heard of them and they sound interesting.
>
>Non-organized, that sounds good.
Actually, I have heard of them, but never in any spiritual sense. If
these are the same people that I think of, they are a mixed group of
crackers, hackers, phreaks and others, collectively sometimes refered to as
"the Net's underground", but I've never heard anyone refering to them in any
spiritual sense. They're too diverse to have any philosophy at all, and
whatever they agree has to do with technical issues (cryptography, virtual
privacy etc.) and some very broad socio-political issues: something about
freedom in the cyber-world from "the system", whatever that is, a
cyber-revolution of some kind, etc.
I think I've seen something like that in a SF novel I read some time
ago: William Gibson's Neuromancer, but I'm not sure if they are influenced
by it or what.
>> Highly secret technique? Well, no - I ain't got it. I don't even have
a
>> technique. But you're right about the essence of Vedic learning thingy.
The
>> closest I can classify myself would be as a follower of Advaita Vedanta,
>> which one can argue *is* the essece of the Vedas, their highest teaching.
>> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings and
>> that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess.
Whatever
>> the case, it was that teaching which put things together for me, tied up
all
>> my previous efforts, made sense of it all and pushed me in the right
>> direction.
>> ...Well, I do have a secret teaching, available to womankind and
mankind
>> alike, but I can't disclose it publicly and for free. You'll have to sign
up
>> for the program, visit the ashram, get approved, pay your fees, worship
and
>> work hard everyday ...then maybe I'll tell you a lil' bit. :-))))) Of
>> course, you'll have to pay your fees!
>>
>
>Ivane, could you explain what Advaita Vedanta is?
Advaita Vedanta means Monistic Vedanta. It teaches that the world of
duality does not exist and that the Self is ever free. The concepts such as
Liberation and Salvation, Matter and Spirit, and all other dual categories
are product of our ignorance, of our inability to see ourselves as the ever
free, ever perfect One that we are. Every time we speak of a dual concept,
we get away from the Truth and get even more confused. An out of that
situation is an intellectual effort in order to understand why non-duality
appears as duality. Upon a succesful intellectual effort, the true nature of
the Self is realized and we're freed from bondage (even though bondage
itself is unreal).
In that light, all religions and sciences become meaningless since
worshiping a God or pursuing the laws of Nature are activities that cannot
lead to true realization. We are dealing simply with dual categories that
produce more dual categories and there's no end to such efforts. At the same
time, Vedanta aknowedges the difficulties of understanding non-dualism and
aknowledges that the variety of religious experiences and different
spiritual paths promote a higher level of Union and by reducing the level of
duality, human kind progresses to a higher, less dual level, so to speak.
That second, more liberal position basically says that if you have to be a
dualist, go ahead and worship your God, do your asanas, or study your
sciense, as long as you realize that your efforts should lead (at some later
time) to non-dualism. ...Or something like that.
>And one more thing, be
>careful of ashrams that charge you money. A true teching/teacher wouldn't
>charge you anything for their spiritual services, trust me on that one.
:-))
I shall remember this. But spiritual teachers need to eat too, you know.
>> aka Swami Mama
>
>What does the "aka" stand for?
aka = also known as
Demek, tova mi e duhovniya psevdonim, religioznata titla. ;-)
>Is it a Mama who takes care of the poopy state
>of mind of her children, by any chance? (just kidding) All the best! Lili
Like a mother who loves and cares for her children, so do I love and
care for the readership of this forum and selfishly spent myself in tireless
effort to teach about the sacred and the profane.
Love,
-= Swami Mama =-
----
AUMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, babe.
Lou Poppler
: Obviously, they are taking the dualistic approach (since any scripture,
: by its nature, is written for the benefit of the ignorant ones, the
: dualists :-)
vij sledvashjtite 3 ot poredizata sled Neuromancer:
Count Zero, Virtual Light, Mona Lisa Overdrive. Neshto kato Biblia na
underground cypherpunks:)
Tzitat: "It's me.Nowhere.Everywhere.I am the sum total.I am the show."
: Being crazy keeps me sane.
:) :) :)
:
: >Shte napishesh li neshto poveche za Energiata?:) Sigurna sqm ,che
: >shte bqde pak edna ot nai-chetenite prashtulki.
: >Iskrenno tvoia,
: ^^^
Goodness!Goliam sram - tova dvoino n, [iskren,iskrenen-lol!], rqjdiasala
li sqm, ni v klin , ni v rqkav rusko vlianie li e ,ide mi v zemiata da potqna!
: Shtoto ako iskash da imash nyakakvi izvqn-zemni prezhivyavaniya i da
: levitirash, da pqtuvash umstveno do Mars, da predskazvash bqdeshteto i da
: minavash prez steni, nyama nishto da ti kazha, shtoto tiya izgqzici ne sa
: Bogu mili.
Sakqn! Ne shta da levitiram! :)
Misleh si po-skoro za prana i za bhakta,seer,jnani i i collaborator i za
"Let we the instruments be the channels of Divine manifestation" - za
tazi energia na prozesite i na "worm to butterfly story".
Za prana shte e polezno da napishesh prashtulka si misleh,za prosveshtavane,
selfishless kakto vinagi :) Pishesh cracking good prashtulki, zatova te
pomolih, ako iskash da prodqljish duhovnata lekzia.
Iskreno tvoia,
kakto vinagi
Crazy
Ti sigurno ne se kazvash Lou Poppler... Kakvo ti e imeto, che da znam s
kogo si govorya.
>: >Shte napishesh li neshto poveche za Energiata?:) Sigurna sqm ,che
>: >shte bqde pak edna ot nai-chetenite prashtulki.
>: >Iskrenno tvoia,
>: ^^^
> Goodness!
Gracious!
Great balls of fire!
>Goliam sram - tova dvoino n, [iskren,iskrenen-lol!], rqjdiasala
>li sqm, ni v klin , ni v rqkav rusko vlianie li e ,ide mi v zemiata da
potqna!
E bre, e bre, ne se kahqri tolkoz. Dvoyno 'n', edinichno 'n'... ne e
golyama rabota. Prosto ne sme spelvachi... kvo da pravish. I az 'iskustvo'
sqs 'z' go spelvam otvreme na vreme, ama ne mi puka.
>: Shtoto ako iskash da imash nyakakvi izvqn-zemni prezhivyavaniya i da
>: levitirash, da pqtuvash umstveno do Mars, da predskazvash bqdeshteto i da
>: minavash prez steni, nyama nishto da ti kazha, shtoto tiya izgqzici ne
sa
>: Bogu mili.
>
>Sakqn! Ne shta da levitiram! :)
>Misleh si po-skoro za prana i za bhakta,seer,jnani i i collaborator
Uh? Neshto ne razbiram. Prana nishto obshto nyama s bhakti. Prana e
"energiya" a bhakti e lyubov kqm Bog. Ne znam ednoto da ima neshto obshto s
drugoto.
> i za
>"Let we the instruments be the channels of Divine manifestation" - za
>tazi energia na prozesite i na "worm to butterfly story".
>Za prana shte e polezno da napishesh prashtulka si misleh,za
prosveshtavane,
>selfishless kakto vinagi :) Pishesh cracking good prashtulki, zatova te
>pomolih, ako iskash da prodqljish duhovnata lekzia.
E to hubavo, ama po moe mnenie pranite, chakrite i prochee drugi
mistichni ponyatiya (glavno svqrzani s Tantra) ne sa osobeno polezni za
duhovna emancipaciya. Zashto togava da gi obsqzhdame?
Seshtam za edna stara prikazka. Svamito si pratil uchenika da izuchava
razlichni duhovni disciplini, s cel da se podgotvi za glavnoto uchenie -
tova deto svamito shte mu propovyadva. Otishql toy pri edin brahmin i
izuchil Vedantata. Otishql posle do edin yogi ta da nauchi Yoga. POsle
otishal do edin pop che da izuchi Budizma... I t. nat. Vqrnal se posle toy v
kolibata na svamito si i go popital: "Abe, taka i taka" kazal "lyubezni mi
svami, izuchih tuy i izuchih onuy i gore-dolu vsichko deto imashe da se
izuchi, chuh go. Samo deto ti ne me izprati da ucha Vaisheshika. A zashto?"
(Vaysheshikite sa materialisti deto ne vyarvat nito v Bog, nito v Duh, nito
v dusha, nito v prerazhdane, nito v nishto. Demek - ateisti. Vyarvat che
svetqt e napraven ot atomi, i che chovek e sqzdaden ot atomi i kato umre -
drugo nyama. :-)) Heraklit ot tam e otkradnal atomizmqt, a nie - ot
Heraklite). Kakto i da e. Poglednal go svamito, pomislil si i kazal: "Ami ne
te prashtam tam, zashtoto kolkoto i dobre da gi izuchish atomite, za Bog
nishto nyama da nauchish."
Ta i nashata istoriya takava. Nie do utre mozhe da si govorim za prana,
udana, apana, samana, vyana i prochee drugi fiziologichni funkcii na
tyaloto, posle sha se slqzhem neshto tam za Sushumna i Pingala, sha
pocheshem pranayama i kak da se disha i kak da se sedi, koya nozdra da
zapushish i koya da otpushish i kak da si styagash zadnika che da ne ti
izticha vqtreshnata energiya dokato meditirash ...ama fayda ot tova nyama.
Poznavam hora koito godini nared se bqzikat s tiya neshta i donikqde ne sa
ya dokarali. E, imat malko napredqk, ama toy e rezultat glavno ot
meditaciya, a tya mozhe da se pravi vqobshte bez mistiki i simvolizmi. Palni
edna sveshtica, krqstosay si krakata, i ya gleday ...gleday ...gleday -
dokato zaspish. :-)) Mnogo hubava meditaciya i mnogo prosta - pqk i
efikasna. A ot tiya tantrichni filosofii samo glavica sha te boli.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
Crazy wrote:
>
> From a dualistic standpoint of view, God's grace probably would have
> something to do with it. But note that at the moment of emancipation (that
> is, about achieving unity with God, about non-dualism), God as such cease to
> exist.
What about before that moment. How does time fit in the whole thing. Or is it
just another dualistic concept, according to the Advaita Vedanta?
You are Her and Her decisions are your decisions, insofar as there
> can be even a talk about decisions, which there can't. Being One, there's
> nobody to decide and there's nothing to be decided on. The Self (being one
> and the same as the Supreme) is ever free and ever emancipated anyway. It is
> just that this fact needs to be realized. Therefore to argue that one needs
> God's grace in order to realize that she *is* God is something that doesn't
> make much sense.
So it is just a matter of a state of mind? Do you think/or believe that Mind
is the be all and highest expression there is? Do you distinguish between
Mind and Soul/Spirit? Or these again are dualistic terms? Or how would you
define all these terms in a "dualistic context"?
(By the way, I am not challenging your beliefs or trying to convince you of
anything, just attempting to understand your philosophy and possibly, after
that bridge it with mine, without undermining one or the other. You know,
every teaching, philosophy, has its own language, and at first it's a matter
of learning the language. But there is also universal language of all
philosophies, especially the Eastern ones). And I do appreciate everything
you write in that regard, thank you for sharing, even though you don't know
your audience so well.
> Here's what Narada Bhakti Sutras has to say on the issue:
> "3. And in its own intrinsic nature, Divine Love is nothing less than
> the immortal bliss of freedom (Mukti) itself, which comes unsolicited by the
> grace of God and by self-sacrifies."
What does the "self-sacrifice" mean?
> Obviously, they are taking the dualistic approach (since any scripture,
> by its nature, is written for the benefit of the ignorant ones, the
> dualists :-)),
Well, aren't we all?...
and it advocates both a God's grace concept as well as
> personal effort (self-sacrifice),
Oh, so that's what it is, PERSONAL EFFORT. WOuld that be equal to INTELLECTUAL
EFFORT?
which is a little bit hard to understand.
WHich one , the self-sacrifice, personal effort, or God's grace?
> Once a pupil has asked Ramakrishna about that: if liberation is the
> result of pure effort or by the grace of God alone. He had replied something
> to the fact that the human condition is similar to a dog tied to a chain.
> The dog has a certain freedom within the link of that chain, to pursue his
> own interests, but he can't go beyond his own chain. Only his Master can
> turn him lose. Similarly a man (or a woman) is tied to the world-appearances
> by the chain called Illusion, and it is up to his Master, God, to let him
> lose. But unless the dog demonstrates that he wants out of the chain, by
> pulling it or whatever, ...his Master may never let him lose.
I personally have no inclination for the
> worship of a divine entity of any kind (usually - but there are certain
> times when I get the urge), so the monistic approach makes more sense for
> me.
It does make a lot of sense to me too, and it's the essence of all the
Eastern teachings and philosophies I've encountered so far, even though not
in the same words-monistic.
...Whatever blows your skirts up.
> If Ramakrishna was teaching someone who had the natural predisposition
> and ability to understand non-duality, he would have continued with: but the
> chain exists only in the mind of the dog, because, being ignorant dog, he
> thinks that there's something called "chain" that keeps him tied and there's
> someone called Master, to untie him. In reality, there's neither chain nor
> Master and the dog is a slave of his own delusion.
Yes, you are right, this is one of the most difficult concepts to understand,
how the many become one and how the small self becomes the Big Self, or as
some would have it for the sake of clarity, how "the drop merges in the
ocean" and loses its individuality.
> Ili, kakto kazvat Sutrite:
>
> "30. But Narada says that the spiritual realization is its own fruit."
>
> It is interesting the Ramakrishna had no set teaching (he had divine
> inspirations and various spiritual experiences from many teachings) and he
> taught each of his students differently, depending on the student's
> temperament and spiritual capacities.
This is always a sign of a true Master.
It was only Vivekananda that was
> taught Advaita
> Vedanta early on, and it is said that Vivekananda hated it then and
> understood it
> only much later.
I read a book with some of his speeches years ago and have respect for him.
He had said in one of them, that all you see around is an illusion, and that
he is an illusion as well, but that the illusion of Vivekananda was going to
lead them out of the illusion of this world (or something like that). But I
didn't know about Advaita Vedanta.
> Bhakti Yoga naprimer se schita "post-classical Yoga",
> tqy kato e sled sistemata na Patanjali. Klasicheskata Yoga, naprimer, kazva
> che emancipaciya e ne samo vqzmozhna no i predpochitana kato rezultat ot
> lichnite usiliya na edin chovek i ideyata za Bog e nenuzhna. Obache, v
> sqshtoto vreme, Patanjali kazva che e vqzmozhna emancipaciya i chrez
> namesata na Bog (Ishvara). Tqy kato Bhakti e sistema glavno i predimno na
> lyubov kqm Bog, yasno e che te shte postavyat udarenieto ne na
> individualnite usiliya na chovek, a na zhelanieto na Bog. No i te ne
> otrichat che emancipaciya e vqzmozhna samo chrez lichni usiliya:
Da, i az sqm chuvala za hora, koito sa stignali do duhovni visoti sami, no e
po-trudno, moje bi po-opasno i po-dqlgo... Vse edno da se uchish da svirish
na piano sam ili s uchitel, koito znae kak. Moiata plemennits, naprimer, se
nauchi sqvsem sama da sviri na piano i tia ima talant opredeleno, no ima
neshta, koito i se opirat i malko guidance ot uchitel bi i pomognal
neimoverno. No nie vqrvim, s tova, koeto imame v momenta and do our best in
any case.
> "24. But the Supreme Divine Love described before is also something more
> than Karma, Jnana and Yoga"
>
> Karma e "rabota" no tuk dumata e v smisql na "akt, usqrdie" - stava
> vqpros za teoriyata che edin chovek tryabva da e trudolyubiv, dobqr,
> moralen, i prochee za da se prerodi po-bogat i po-umen, ili da otide v
> Rayskite Gradini: takqv podhod e podhodyasht za masite koito sa po-tqpichki
>
> :-)) i ne zhelayat nishto drugo.
> Jnana e "znanie" - stava vqpros za Advayta-Vedanta.
> Yoga si e yoga - stava vqpros za klasicheskata sistema na Patanjali.
Yoga means Union, ili Edinstvo (mai e dobqr prevod).
> "27. And because God's dislikes the reliance of one's own unaided
> self-effort, and likes the complete feeling of misery due to the
> consciousness of one's helplessness in independently working out one's
> salvation, Bhakti is greater".
WHo testified about God's likes and dislikes?
> S drugi dumi, mozhe da se postigne emancipaciya samo chrez lichni
> usiliya, obache po-hubavo e da se oblegnesh izcyalo na Bog, ponezhe ne Neya
> i e kef da se mqchish i da zavisish ot Neya. :-))
Would you be taking even one more breath if it weren't for God's Spirit within
you?
> Being crazy keeps me sane.
>
> >Shte napishesh li neshto poveche za Energiata?:) Sigurna sqm ,che
> >shte bqde pak edna ot nai-chetenite prashtulki.
> >Iskrenno tvoia,
>
> Iskrena moya, ne znam za koya Energiya tochno stava duma: za prana li,
> za kundalini li, za ki ili za chi, ili za neshto drugo i kakvo tochno
> iskash da znaesh za neya. I zashto?
> Shtoto ako iskash da imash nyakakvi izvqn-zemni prezhivyavaniya i da
> levitirash, da pqtuvash umstveno do Mars, da predskazvash bqdeshteto i da
> minavash prez steni, nyama nishto da ti kazha,
shtoto tiya izgqzici ne sa
> Bogu mili.
Tuka veche kaza goliamo neshto. Kolko e viarno. Moje bi ot dualistichna gledna
tochka:)) energia i Spirit da sa razlichni neshta?
> S lyubov,
> Iskreno tvoy,
>
> -= Swami Mama =-
Izviniavam se, che se namesvam v chujd razgovor, no mi e interesen.
So far, what I've understood is that you can attain enlightenment based on a
personal, INTELLECTUAL effort and that appeals to yuo because you are an
intellectual anyway. So you focus on the One Reality with the faith/knowledge
that the Unreality/Illusion/dualistic world etc. will dissipate in the
process and lo and behold, the realization will be there that there is only
One and You ate That and That is You. I can't help quoting an ex friend of
mine who used to say:"There is Nobody Else. All there is is Me. I am the only
One and so why bother about anybody?" SInce there isn't much space for this
posting left, I'll have to cntinue later. I just wanted to say that
woman_being had a very good point once when she said that LOVE brings her in
union and harmony with the Supreme Being. But it's hard to control Love or
even have love by will, isn't it. While you can chose to think almost any
thought you wish to, with some self-discipline. But our expression in this
world (sorry for the dualism) is more through our minds than through love,
and do we know what love is.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >>>: natatqk. Ako ima neshto polezno v izuchavaneto na koyto i da e model,
> to
> >>>: e samo v (eventualnoto) poznanie na ogranicheniyata mu.
> >
> >Dobre kazano, ot mislesht chovek. NO priznai sam, che svetqt e pqlen s
> >ogranichenia bez tova i nezavisimo dali nie priznavame edna istina ili ne,
> tia
> >sqshtestvuva...
>
> Ne moga da go priznaya ponezhe ne go vyarvam. No tova e moe lichno
> razbirane po vqprosa i ako drugi ne go spodelyat, ne me trevozhi osobeno.
>
Zashto, tova e mnogo hubavo, da ne te trevoji mnenieto na drugi hora kogato
ne e v sqglasiie s tvoite ubejdenia.
> >
> >Devotion and love for God are God's grace, one cannot aquire them by will.
>
> The problem with understanding the concept of God's grace is that people
> get complacent and think that because it is God's grace that will deliver
> them, they don't have to do anything special about it. It's the "lazy man's
> guide to elightenment" philosophy - drink your beer, eat your peanuts and if
> God decides to save you, She will do so in Her own time. There are obvious
> difficulties with such an approach.
This is funny and cute. I kind of like the "lazy man's approach":))) Well, it
is said that you can't have two Masters, meaning "the world" (that's a very
elusive term) and God. But after observing myself and people I have come to
the conclusion there is truth to it. So you might have to make an effort to
"spiritualize yourself":)) Or is it a given, that you have spiritual
inclination. How do you explain the fact that some people will never give a
damn about any kind of spirituality, and others who have "the natural
inclination"? Is that your own will, is it God's grace or what? And who is
willing anyway, if there is only One?:)))
> >It's true that this age is more or less oblivious to devotion and following
> >God's will (that's why it's referred to as the Iron Age, or Kal Yuga) but
> >it's just a matter of expanding one's Self, not of losing one self.
>
> Expending one's Self and losing one's Self are exactly one and the same
> thing.
Oh, here we seem to be playing with words. But yes, you are right. I just
meant that sometimes it might look scary (to some people) to lose their
identity, or what they are used to having as their identity.
>
> >> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings and
> >> that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess.
How is that? Could you share?
> Whatever
> >> the case, it was that teaching which put things together for me, tied up
> all
> >> my previous efforts, made sense of it all and pushed me in the right
> >> direction.
> >> ...Well, I do have a secret teaching, available to womankind and
> mankind
> >> alike, but I can't disclose it publicly and for free. You'll have to sign
> up
> >> for the program, visit the ashram, get approved, pay your fees, worship
> and
> >> work hard everyday ...then maybe I'll tell you a lil' bit. :-))))) Of
> >> course, you'll have to pay your fees!
It seems to happen like that, something that appeals to you and make sense
will show up at some point of your life.
>
.
But spiritual teachers need to eat too, you know.
Oh, yes, they do. But being a spiritual teacher shouldn't be a career or
business. It might be a free gift, out of love for you and God, which are One
anyway:))))))) All given by God is for free. Does love charge for uplifting
your soul, bringing joy and beauty in your life?
>
> Like a mother who loves and cares for her children, so do I love and
> care for the readership of this forum and
selfishly
Is that so?
spent myself in tireless
> effort to teach about the sacred and the profane.
Well, thank you Swami-ji.
> Love,
> -= Swami Mama =-
Lili
Crazy
<7av5s0$27p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Crazy wrote:
>>
>> From a dualistic standpoint of view, God's grace probably would have
>> something to do with it. But note that at the moment of emancipation
(that
>> is, about achieving unity with God, about non-dualism), God as such cease
to
>> exist.
>
>What about before that moment.
Before that moment, it's up to you. If you're inclined towards relating
to Unity by worship and if that worship involves a personalized God (which
is nothing but the Supreme, with certain characterstics superimposed on
Her), then yes - God's grace would be important for you and Vedanta would
say that you need it. If, on the other side, you're predisposed towards an
analytic behavior and pursue the One through mental and physical exercises,
through intelectual discorse (Advayta, Samkya etc.) or though scientific
study (physics) then God's grace would not concern you in the least and
Vedanta will aknowledge that as well.
See, whatever model you chose to pursue the One, the rules of that model
would apply to you. Insofar as your efforts are directed towards the
realization of the One, Vedanta will encourage you and would advise that you
follow the rules of your chosen model. For Vedanta, there's no objective
truth about anything, since everything exists in a dual world, which is not
real, from an absolute standpoint. Hence, there's nothing to be said about
God or God's grace. But from relative point of view, the dual world is quiet
real for all that live in it and so it makes only sense to encourage them to
live accordingly.
>How does time fit in the whole thing. Or is it
>just another dualistic concept, according to the Advaita Vedanta?
Now you're catching on. :-))
Yes - time, space and everything in between is a dualistic concept. Time
arises with the creation of the illusion (that is, the creation of the
material universe) and time ceases to exist with it's destruction ...which
is also the stand of modern astrophysics on the issue. It used to be that
time was thought of as an infinte line going from the "past" and headed for
the "future", whatever those terms might be. Now, the commongly accepted
theory is that time was "born" with the Big Bang. Before that, there's no
"time".
> You are Her and Her decisions are your decisions, insofar as there
>> can be even a talk about decisions, which there can't. Being One, there's
>> nobody to decide and there's nothing to be decided on. The Self (being
one
>> and the same as the Supreme) is ever free and ever emancipated anyway. It
is
>> just that this fact needs to be realized. Therefore to argue that one
needs
>> God's grace in order to realize that she *is* God is something that
doesn't
>> make much sense.
>
>So it is just a matter of a state of mind? Do you think/or believe that
Mind
>is the be all and highest expression there is? Do you distinguish between
>Mind and Soul/Spirit? Or these again are dualistic terms?
They sure are. :-))
The charming thing about Advaita is that it gives you instant answers to
all of your questions right away and there's never an inconsistency. Yes -
the separation of the world into Matter and Spirit, the separation of
sentient and non-sentient, human and non-human ...mind and spirit ...all of
these are superimposed, artificially created concepts that divide the One
into Many (even though the One keeps shining through all of the Many as
One). None of these concept are important or something to be concerned
about.
I, personally, insofar as I dwell in the realms of the unreal most often
:-)), chose to make a distinction and so I separate body from mind from
spirit, as categories. But, having "sensed" the One in the Many (one may
call that "a certain spiritual experience" :-)), I really don't have much
need to define them or to theorize about what they may be. When I did have
such need, I followed the Yoga system of philosophy (which is close to
Samkhya but not identical) and for me mind was just an extension of the
body, a more "refined" bodily product, while the Soul was a localized
manifestation of the Cosmic Soul. The mind, when free from impurities (such
as thoughts, memories, dreams, emotions etc.) is able to reflect it's own
Divine nature and at such an instant It realizes that it is nothing but the
Supreme. That realization of "I" being "It", is called Liberation. The
process through which the Mind is freed from impurities could be many
things - devotion to a God, physical practice (asanas), mental practice
(meditation) etc. etc.
To Vedanta, of course, none of that matters much. As long as you realize
that Unity, it is up to you if you want to believe in a soul, a mind or
whatever and it is up to you to establish the relationships between these
terms.
>Or how would you
>define all these terms in a "dualistic context"?
See above.
>> Here's what Narada Bhakti Sutras has to say on the issue:
>> "3. And in its own intrinsic nature, Divine Love is nothing less than
>> the immortal bliss of freedom (Mukti) itself, which comes unsolicited by
the
>> grace of God and by self-sacrifies."
>
>What does the "self-sacrifice" mean?
It means killing the ego, obliterating the Self.
>> Obviously, they are taking the dualistic approach (since any
scripture,
>> by its nature, is written for the benefit of the ignorant ones, the
>> dualists :-)),
>
>Well, aren't we all?...
As long as there's "all" then we surely are. :-))
Pure non-dualism is impossible to talk about since then the question
would be who's doing the talking and for whose benefit?
> and it advocates both a God's grace concept as well as
>> personal effort (self-sacrifice),
>
>Oh, so that's what it is, PERSONAL EFFORT. WOuld that be equal to
INTELLECTUAL
>EFFORT?
Not at all. Vedanta does teach that a purely intellectual effort is the
prefered way to understand non-duality. One simply begins to reason until
one figures it all out. But a personal effort can be (and most often is)
rather non-intellectual. Bhakti Yoga is non-intellectual - there's no much
theory or reasoning. One simply worships God, in all Her forms, at any and
all time and place. The personal effort here is emotional (since love and
Divine Love are emotional categories). On the other hand a system such as
Yoga, has little place for emotions - the personal effort here is physical
(asana, pranayama etc. - in other words, exercises) and mental (pratyahara,
dhyana etc - in other words, meditation). A system such as Christianity
would use a mixture between emotional effort (prayer, love of God),
intellectual effort (reading the Bible and reasoning out what's in it) and
physical effort (doing good work, good deeds).
>Izviniavam se, che se namesvam v chujd razgovor, no mi e interesen.
Razgovorqt vqobshte ne e "chuzhd". Samo izglezhda takqv ponezhe samo
dvama uchastvuvat. No po princip, vseki edin razgovor v Usenet e publichen,
po definiciya.
>So far, what I've understood is that you can attain enlightenment based on
a
>personal, INTELLECTUAL effort and that appeals to yuo because you are an
>intellectual anyway.
Well, kind of. The other side of the equation is that I have tried other
things and they haven't worked. ...Or maybe I didn't think it wise to spent
fifty years medidating under a tree, after which something *might* happen.
:-))
>So you focus on the One Reality with the faith/knowledge
>that the Unreality/Illusion/dualistic world etc. will dissipate in the
>process and lo and behold, the realization will be there that there is only
>One and You ate That and That is You.
Yup, that's pretty much it.
>I can't help quoting an ex friend of
>mine who used to say:"There is Nobody Else. All there is is Me. I am the
only
>One and so why bother about anybody?"
Hmmm... doesn't sound right. :-))
A more appropriate way to put it would be "There's nothing else. There's
no Me. All are truly One. I care only for the One. Therefore I care for
all!"
>SInce there isn't much space for this
>posting left, I'll have to cntinue later. I just wanted to say that
>woman_being had a very good point once when she said that LOVE brings her
in
>union and harmony with the Supreme Being.
She is a natural Bhakti, even though she doesn't know it.
>But it's hard to control Love or
>even have love by will, isn't it.
True.
But it is so easy to completely lose yourself in Love... Well, for some
people anyway.
>While you can chose to think almost any
>thought you wish to, with some self-discipline. But our expression in this
>world (sorry for the dualism)
:-)) Just don't let it happen again.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
Crazy
<7ave8p$9ue$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Ne moga da go priznaya ponezhe ne go vyarvam. No tova e moe lichno
>> razbirane po vqprosa i ako drugi ne go spodelyat, ne me trevozhi osobeno.
>>
>
>ne e v sqglasiie s tvoite ubejdenia.
To ne e zashtoto sqm tolkoz natrakan che ne mi puka kakvo mislyat
horata. To e zashtoto az samiyat sqznavam che ideite mi sa mnogo
naludnichavi i normalnite hora nyamat nikakva vina za tova. :-))
>> >Devotion and love for God are God's grace, one cannot aquire them by
will.
>>
>> The problem with understanding the concept of God's grace is that
people
>> get complacent and think that because it is God's grace that will deliver
>> them, they don't have to do anything special about it. It's the "lazy
man's
>> guide to elightenment" philosophy - drink your beer, eat your peanuts and
if
>> God decides to save you, She will do so in Her own time. There are
obvious
>> difficulties with such an approach.
>
>This is funny and cute. I kind of like the "lazy man's approach":))) Well,
it
>is said that you can't have two Masters, meaning "the world" (that's a very
>elusive term) and God. But after observing myself and people I have come to
>the conclusion there is truth to it. So you might have to make an effort to
>"spiritualize yourself":)) Or is it a given, that you have spiritual
>inclination. How do you explain the fact that some people will never give a
>damn about any kind of spirituality, and others who have "the natural
>inclination"? Is that your own will, is it God's grace or what?
Ami horata sa na razlichno nivo na razvitie, kato biologichni organizmi.
I ne e samo vqpros na obrazovanie, kultura ili dori mozqchen kapacitet.
Nyakoi hora imat dobre razvita intuiciya, a drugi - ne. Nyakoi imat chuvstvo
za iskustvo, drugi - ne. I prochee.
Gledala li si kak rastat domati? Ima edni deto izrastvat bqrzo i davat
suma ti zelenchuk. Drugi - mqchat se, gorkite, vehnat i edva napqpvat. Ya
dadat nyakoy pleshiv domat, ya - ne. I horata sqshtite. Zashto ednite taka,
a drugite -inache, nikoy ne znae. Priroda.
>And who is
>willing anyway, if there is only One?:)))
Aha! Bqrzo shvashtash vazhnite neshta.
Mnogo hubav vqpros. Edinniya nishto ne zhalae. Bog zhelae.
Ako si spomnyash pqrvata chast na moyta "duhovna lekciya", prikazvah za
Sqshtnost i Forma (Duh i Bog). Duhqt (Edin) nishto ne zhelae ponezhe Tya e
Sqshtnost, bez opredelenie, bez lichnost, bez kachestva. Bog, ot druga
strana, e s kachestva - Bog e mogqsht, vseznaesht, i t. nat. Ne-dualnostta
ne mozhe da e ogranichena s kachestva i opredeleniya.
I Bog i Duh sa edno i sqshto neshto, no pqrvoto ponyatie e v sferata na
dualnostta, a vtoroto - vqv sferata na ne-dualnost. Ako se zanimavash s
dualnosti (vklyuchitelno religiya), togava Bog i Neynite zhelaniya shte imat
da igrayat nyakakva rolya. No ot gledna tochka na ne-dualnost, nyama koy da
iska, za kogo da go iska i kakvo da iska ponezhe vsichko e Edinstvo (Duh).
Apropo, zatova Vedanta pooshtryava religiite, no sqshto taka iska da
znaesh za ponyatieto Edinstvo. Kato zapochnesh da go prilagash tova ponyatie
kqm tvoyata religiya, duhovni razbiranie i prochee zhiteiski opit,
zapochvash da shvashtash nyakoi neshta.
>> >It's true that this age is more or less oblivious to devotion and
following
>> >God's will (that's why it's referred to as the Iron Age, or Kal Yuga)
but
>> >it's just a matter of expanding one's Self, not of losing one self.
>>
>> Expending one's Self and losing one's Self are exactly one and the
same
>> thing.
>
>Oh, here we seem to be playing with words. But yes, you are right. I just
>meant that sometimes it might look scary (to some people) to lose their
>identity, or what they are used to having as their identity.
Tova e vyarno.
>> >> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings
and
>> >> that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess.
>
>How is that? Could you share?
Ami taka e ponezhe procesqt na uchene predpolaga dualnost. Ne mozhesh da
uchish bez da ima uchitel i uchenik. A ako vyarvash che ima dvama, znachi
otrichash Ediniya. Vedanta sqshto gi ima tiya pritchi za stradanie,
prerazhdane, Bog, meditacii i prochee drugi ponyatiya sreshtani vqv vsyaka
edna indiyska sistema. (Takava Vedanta se naricha Dvaita Vedanta - dualna
Vedanta, za razlika ot Advaita Vedanta - ne-dualna Vedanta). I dvete
propovyadvat Edinstvo, no Dvaita uchi Edinstvo, dokato Advaita prosto go
provqzglasyava.
Chista, napqlno ne-dualna Vedanta (Advaita) shte ti kazhe che nyama
smisql da uchish ili da se uchish, ponezhe nyama nito uchitel, nito uchenik,
nito pqk neshto da se znae. Samo Ediniya sqshtestvuva. Koy uchi togava, kogo
i sqs kakva cel? Vsqshtnost, ima takiva "sveti knigi" i za Vedanta
(nay-izvestnata e Ashtavakra Samhita), no te zvuchat po-skoro kato Tao Te
Ching, otkolkoto kato indiyska sutra. Ako ima nyakakqv efekt, toy e kato
efekta na edno haiku (ako go zagreesh).
Crazy
<7b7d2c$6ui$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Crazy wrote:
>> >> >> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of
teachings
>> Ami taka e ponezhe procesqt na uchene predpolaga dualnost. Ne mozhesh
da
>Mersi za podrobnite obiasnenia. Vseki pqt neshto mi se iziasniava kakto po
>otnoshenie na ne-dualistichnata Vedanta, taka i po tova kak ti mislish, i
mi
>e mnogo interesno. Az imam malko kartinno mislene i obicham da si
predstvaiam
>"images" kogato se opitvam da razbera neshto. Priroda, kakvo da pravish:)
Ta
>si predtsaviam, che chovek,ili ti, naprimer, kato talantliv ne-dualist:), e
>Edin/Bog i dusha/Ivan ednovremenno. Ne znam v tvoia sluchai kak e (makar
che
>mi e mnogo interesno da uznaia, no ne e polite da pitam za tova),
Hem kulturna, hem stesnitelna. :-))
Bravos.
>no za
>average person (i tova ne znam kakvo e, no neise), fokusqt e v sferata na
>Ivan, i chat-pat na dusha. Bog i Edin ne sa realnosti v misqlta mu, makar
che
>tova e koeto e toi, i ostanaloto e iliuzia, sqzdadena ot samia nego (kak,
za
>tova shte kajesh niakoi pqt). Za "above average person", fokusqt (na
>attention)e razpredelen vqrhu Ivan i dusha i chat-pat ima realizatsia na
Bog,
>no Edin si ostava mqgliav. Za "crazy person" ne znam kqde e fokusqt:)), no
>opredeleno e v sqstoianie da useti i razgranichi Ivan ot dusha ot Bog i
Edin
>i da ima concept za Edin predi dori da go e Realize napqlno. Ne znam, vse
pak
>shte te pitam,a pri teb kak e?
Za "crazy person" fokusqt e na Ivan i otvreme navreme useshtaniya za
Ediniya. Dusha i Bog sa prekaleno abstraktni i teoritizirani za da imat
nyakakvo znachenie. Obache i Ivan i Ediniya sa mnogo praktichno osezaemi i
zatova udarenieto e na tyah.
>Iavno si imal useshtane za vishata sq
>sqhtnost, no bil li si niakoga v sqstoianie na pqlno Edinstvo (bez otsianka
>na dualizqm)?
Ne moga da otgovorya na takqv vqpros. Ako edinstvoto e pqlno, koy da si
spomni i za kakvo da si spomni?
>Znachi, chovek e dualist i ne-dualist at the same time, samo
>che go osqznava v razlichna stepen.
...Mnogo trudni vqprosi zadavash, mama mu stara!
Taka e, no ne tochno. Chovek e dualist ponezhe sqshtestvuva v sqstoyanie
na dualnost i kolkoto i "neistinsko" tova sqstoyanie da e, za nego e
istinsko do tolkova dokolkoto sqshtestvuvaneto mu kato individ zavisi ot
tova. V sqshtoto vreme ne-dualizqmqt sqshtestvuva ot absolyutna gledna
tochka, no v nego nyama myasto za chovek ili pqk za kakvoto i da e drugo.
Realizaciyata na ne-dualnost unishtozhava vsichko drugo (koeto sqshtestvuva
v sqstoyanie na dualnost - chovek vlkyuchitelno). Za ne-dualnost ne mozhe da
se razmishlyava i logichno da se obsqzhda ponezhe rasmislite i razuma sa
prisqshti na dualnostta. Ednoto ne se vrqzva s drugoto. Ne-dualnostta samo
mozhe da se postigne, osqznae, i ottam natatqk vsichko stava MU.
>I e vqpros na attention, taka li? A dali
>e viarno, che ako chovek e v sqstoianie da si fokusira vnimanieto samo v
>Edin, avtomatichno shte prestane da sqshtestvuva kato Ivan, dusha, pqk daje
i
>Bog?
Da ...s uslovie. Fokusirane na vnimanieto vodi do nasilstveno
anihilirane na mnozhestvoto. Kolkoto po-pqlno e tova anihilirane, tolkova
po-blizko do ne-dualnost chovek se priblizhava. No za pqlna ne-dualnost,
dori i ideyata za Edin tryabva da se utrepe.
Meditaciyata ne e nishtro drugo osven utrepvane na mnozhestvoto.
Lyubov kqm Bog ne e nishto drugo osven utrepvane na mnozhestvoto.
Tqrseneto na "nauchna istina" ne e nishto drugo osven utrepvane na
mnozhestvoto.
>V takqv sluchai kakva e razlikata mejdu vnimanie (attention) i
>intelektualen "napqn" (intellectual effort)?
Intelektualniya napqn e takqv samo v nachalnata faza. Kqm kraya,
intelekta sqshto tryabva da se utrepe (po sqshtiya nachin po koyto i obektqt
na meditaciya tryabva da se utrepe). S drugi dumi, zapochva se s
intelektualen napqn, no se privqrshva s neshto drugo. Intelektqt samo vodi
do ne-dualnost, no ne go postiga. Taka se poluchava i s meditaciyata (kakto
spomenah po-gore). Kakvo e tova "drugo", trudno e da se kazhe. Nyakoi mu
vikat "praznota". Drugi mu vikat MU. Treti mu vikat "God's grace".
Intelektualniya napqn, za da e polezen ( s smilql postigane na
ne-dualnost) sqshto tryabva da e nasochen kqm utrepvane na mnozhestvoto ...i
da zavqrshi s izostavyane na razuma. Inache, mozhe da se napqvash vo veki
vekov i vse taya shte e.
>A znachi li sqshto, che ako
>izvednqj chovek "useti", che ne e nujno da pravi usilia, da razbira kakvoto
i
>da bilo, zashtoto niama kakvo da bqde postignato ili razbrano, zashtoto toi
e
>v "One consciousness", v tozi moment Ivan shte izchezne kato tialo, um i
>dusha i veche ne mojesh go otkri, nito vqv physical, nito v mental, nito v
>spiritual world, v koito toi i bez tova ne viarva:)
:-))
Imah edin podoben razgovor s drug edin chovek predi godini. Ta toy po
edno vreme me popita neshto podobno. Kaza: ako e vyarno che dualnostta e
samo ilyuziya i ti kato individ ne sqshtestvuvash realno, shto ne vzemesh da
presechesh ulicata na cherven svetofar!? Ponezhe kolite sa ilyuziya, kakto
si i ti, nikoy nyama da te sgazi. :-))) Az mu otgovorih che ako
ne-dualnostta deystvitelno sqshtestvuva, az sqm toy e sfetofar sa kolite sqm
tuk e tam. Koy da ide, kakvo da preseche i koy da go blqsne kogato vsichko e
Edno? Toy ne beshe mnogo vqodusheven ot takqv edin otgovor, no ne mozha da
izmisli nikakvi vqzrazheniya ...i nyakak si razbra za kakvo stava duma.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >> >> Unfortunately, even Vedanta falls for dualistic methods of teachings
> and
> >> >> that's rather unsettling. ...But that's for another post, I guess.
> >
> >How is that? Could you share?
>
> Ami taka e ponezhe procesqt na uchene predpolaga dualnost. Ne mozhesh da
> uchish bez da ima uchitel i uchenik. A ako vyarvash che ima dvama, znachi
> otrichash Ediniya. Vedanta sqshto gi ima tiya pritchi za stradanie,
> prerazhdane, Bog, meditacii i prochee drugi ponyatiya sreshtani vqv vsyaka
> edna indiyska sistema. (Takava Vedanta se naricha Dvaita Vedanta - dualna
> Vedanta, za razlika ot Advaita Vedanta - ne-dualna Vedanta). I dvete
> propovyadvat Edinstvo, no Dvaita uchi Edinstvo, dokato Advaita prosto go
> provqzglasyava.
> Chista, napqlno ne-dualna Vedanta (Advaita) shte ti kazhe che nyama
> smisql da uchish ili da se uchish, ponezhe nyama nito uchitel, nito uchenik,
> nito pqk neshto da se znae. Samo Ediniya sqshtestvuva. Koy uchi togava, kogo
> i sqs kakva cel? Vsqshtnost, ima takiva "sveti knigi" i za Vedanta
> (nay-izvestnata e Ashtavakra Samhita), no te zvuchat po-skoro kato Tao Te
> Ching, otkolkoto kato indiyska sutra. Ako ima nyakakqv efekt, toy e kato
> efekta na edno haiku (ako go zagreesh).
> S lyubov,
Mersi za podrobnite obiasnenia. Vseki pqt neshto mi se iziasniava kakto po
otnoshenie na ne-dualistichnata Vedanta, taka i po tova kak ti mislish, i mi
e mnogo interesno. Az imam malko kartinno mislene i obicham da si predstvaiam
"images" kogato se opitvam da razbera neshto. Priroda, kakvo da pravish:) Ta
si predtsaviam, che chovek,ili ti, naprimer, kato talantliv ne-dualist:), e
Edin/Bog i dusha/Ivan ednovremenno. Ne znam v tvoia sluchai kak e (makar che
mi e mnogo interesno da uznaia, no ne e polite da pitam za tova), no za
average person (i tova ne znam kakvo e, no neise), fokusqt e v sferata na
Ivan, i chat-pat na dusha. Bog i Edin ne sa realnosti v misqlta mu, makar che
tova e koeto e toi, i ostanaloto e iliuzia, sqzdadena ot samia nego (kak, za
tova shte kajesh niakoi pqt). Za "above average person", fokusqt (na
attention)e razpredelen vqrhu Ivan i dusha i chat-pat ima realizatsia na Bog,
no Edin si ostava mqgliav. Za "crazy person" ne znam kqde e fokusqt:)), no
opredeleno e v sqstoianie da useti i razgranichi Ivan ot dusha ot Bog i Edin
i da ima concept za Edin predi dori da go e Realize napqlno. Ne znam, vse pak
shte te pitam,a pri teb kak e? Iavno si imal useshtane za vishata sq
sqhtnost, no bil li si niakoga v sqstoianie na pqlno Edinstvo (bez otsianka
na dualizqm)? Znachi, chovek e dualist i ne-dualist at the same time, samo
che go osqznava v razlichna stepen. I e vqpros na attention, taka li? A dali
e viarno, che ako chovek e v sqstoianie da si fokusira vnimanieto samo v
Edin, avtomatichno shte prestane da sqshtestvuva kato Ivan, dusha, pqk daje i
Bog? V takqv sluchai kakva e razlikata mejdu vnimanie (attention) i
intelektualen "napqn" (intellectual effort)? A znachi li sqshto, che ako
izvednqj chovek "useti", che ne e nujno da pravi usilia, da razbira kakvoto i
da bilo, zashtoto niama kakvo da bqde postignato ili razbrano, zashtoto toi e
v "One consciousness", v tozi moment Ivan shte izchezne kato tialo, um i
dusha i veche ne mojesh go otkri, nito vqv physical, nito v mental, nito v
spiritual world, v koito toi i bez tova ne viarva:)
-===- x000x (***) #$$$# "'''" !ZZZ! +---+ ^///^ ~???~
trust...@my-dejanews.com
> See, whatever model you chose to pursue the One, the rules of that model
> would apply to you.
Tuka kaza goliama istina, mislila sqm go, no tezi dumi sa mnogo tochni.
Insofar as your efforts are directed towards the
> realization of the One, Vedanta will encourage you and would advise that you
> follow the rules of your chosen model.
Znachi niama predpochitan "model"?
For Vedanta, there's no objective
> truth about anything, since everything exists in a dual world, which is not
> real, from an absolute standpoint.
Zashto, ne moje li da ima togava "dualistic truth" i "non-dualistic/absolute
truth"? I tova, koeto narichat One, ne e li sqshto The Truth? E, mnogo se
zadqlbah.
Hence, there's nothing to be said about
> God or God's grace. But from relative point of view, the dual world is quiet
> real for all that live in it and so it makes only sense to encourage them to
> live accordingly.
Ia kaji tuka kak e, chovek jivee v dualistichnia sviat ili svetqt jivee v
nego?:) Zashtoto ako tozi sviat e nerealen produkt na realnia One, to izliza,
che sqshtectvuvanieto mu se opredelia samo ot misqlta na Boga v choveka(koito
e nerealen).
>
> >How does time fit in the whole thing. Or is it
> >just another dualistic concept, according to the Advaita Vedanta?
>
> Now you're catching on. :-))
> Yes - time, space and everything in between is a dualistic concept. Time
> arises with the creation of the illusion (that is, the creation of the
> material universe) and time ceases to exist with it's destruction ...
And how is the universe destroyed, according to Adv. Vedanta? Just by you
realizing the One, or in some other way?
which
> is also the stand of modern astrophysics on the issue. It used to be that
> time was thought of as an infinte line going from the "past" and headed for
> the "future", whatever those terms might be. Now, the commongly accepted
> theory is that time was "born" with the Big Bang. Before that, there's no
> "time".
Yes, it seems there never was time, it only looks real to somebody who is
asleep in the illusion.
The Self (being
> one
> >> and the same as the Supreme) is ever free and ever emancipated anyway. It
> is
> >> just that
this fact needs to be realized.
E tuk e razkovnicheto. Tazi realization moje da stane mignoveno, no zashto ne
stava (imam predvid istinski, a inache chovek moje da si vqobraziava kakvo li
ne), ne znam. Dali stava na stepeni...
> I, personally, insofar as I dwell in the realms of the unreal most often
> :-)), chose to make a distinction and so I separate body from mind from
> spirit, as categories. But, having "sensed" the One in the Many (one may
> call that "a certain spiritual experience" :-)), I really don't have much
> need to define them or to theorize about what they may be. When I did have
> such need, I followed the Yoga system of philosophy (which is close to
> Samkhya but not identical) and for me mind was just an extension of the
> body, a more "refined" bodily product, while the Soul was a localized
> manifestation of the Cosmic Soul.
Just a thought, if you think that distinction is not important (or you don't
need it) between body, mind and soul, does it seem that some of these might
also be temporary/illusionary and some not. Like the body-mind connection
that you nicely described, what happens to them at the physical death? The
body ceases to exist, and the mind probably not. Would there be possible
death for the mind, just with a longer life-span, and what would the essence
in us be that does not die (let's put it this way)?
By the way, I am very interested in your spiritual experiences and may be it's
not a good thing to pry like that, but if you ever feel like sharing...
The mind, when free from impurities (such
> as thoughts, memories, dreams, emotions etc.) is able to reflect it's own
> Divine nature and at such an instant It realizes that it is nothing but the
> Supreme.
O.K. now I understand more - a key for achieving Liberation is to clean up the
mind.
That realization of "I" being "It", is called Liberation.
The
> process through which the Mind is freed from impurities could be many
> things - devotion to a God, physical practice (asanas), mental practice
> (meditation) etc. etc.
> To Vedanta, of course, none of that matters much. As long as you realize
> that Unity, it is up to you if you want to believe in a soul, a mind or
> whatever and it is up to you to establish the relationships between these
> terms.
Yes, that makes sense, that actually the simplest minds are more open to the
truth and mere beliefs won't get you anywhere. But then if realization is all
you want, how do you get it? Or you say, follow whatever feels right to you?
As long as it gets you there? Or does it offer a separate, unique model.
Because even if it's just focusing on the truth, that's not as simple as it
sounds. I heard a story, whereby a dsisciple-to-be asked his Master-to-be for
his initiation. The Master said: "You can have it tomorrow, if you can spend
one night in isolation, in a cave:)), and think of anything you want, except
of crocodiles." Simple enough? On the next morning the disciple returned to
the Master, only to confess that he hadn't been able to think of anything
else, except crocodiles. There are techings that profess stopping the mind
and concentration, but they do not seem to be so easy to achieve. What's your
side of that?
>
> >
Vedanta does teach that a purely intellectual effort is the
> prefered way to understand non-duality. One simply begins to reason until
> one figures it all out.
So that's what most of my talking above was about. How do you make this
intellectual effort?
But a personal effort can be (and most often is)
> rather non-intellectual. Bhakti Yoga is non-intellectual - there's no much
> theory or reasoning. One simply worships God, in all Her forms, at any and
> all time and place. The personal effort here is emotional (since love and
> Divine Love are emotional categories).
Here I would not agree with you. Emotions and love and Divine Love are
definitely different.
And it seems that Vedanta places the intelellectual
effort higher than Love, is that so? Or considers it to be the most effective?
On the other hand a system such as
> Yoga, has little place for emotions - the personal effort here is physical
> (asana, pranayama etc. - in other words, exercises) and mental (pratyahara,
> dhyana etc - in other words, meditation). A system such as Christianity
> would use a mixture between emotional effort (prayer, love of God),
> intellectual effort (reading the Bible and reasoning out what's in it) and
> physical effort (doing good work, good deeds).
.
>
> >So far, what I've understood is that you can attain enlightenment based on
> a
> >personal, INTELLECTUAL effort and that appeals to yuo because you are an
> >intellectual anyway.
>
> Well, kind of. The other side of the equation is that I have tried other
> things and they haven't worked. ...Or maybe I didn't think it wise to spent
> fifty years medidating under a tree, after which something *might* happen.
> :-))
This seems to be true. But does you "method" work faster?
>
> >I can't help quoting an ex friend of
> >mine who used to say:"There is Nobody Else. All there is is Me. I am the
> only
> >One and so why bother about anybody?"
>
> Hmmm... doesn't sound right. :-))
> A more appropriate way to put it would be "There's nothing else. There's
> no Me. All are truly One. I care only for the One. Therefore I care for
> all!"
Yes, he was justifying his selfishness in this way. He loved doing those
things, taking a pure, spiritual concept and twisting it into a "devilish"
one. It 's a kind of sport for him. A different sense of humor, I guess. I
quoted him just for fun. But forgot to mark it this way:)))
I just wanted to say that
> >woman_being had a very good point once when she said that LOVE brings her
> in
> >union and harmony with the Supreme Being.
>
> She is a natural Bhakti, even though she doesn't know it.
She believes in love, or trusts love/Love :) She somehow knows intuitively
that Love takes you to the God within, she has experienced it. I meant to
write to her but couldn't find her posting about love again.
>
> >But it's hard to control Love or
> >even have love by will, isn't it.
>
> True.
> But it is so easy to completely lose yourself in Love...
Hey, do you mean losing your self, by any chance?:))) It sounds familiar:))
>
> >While you can chose to think almost any
> >thought you wish to, with some self-discipline. But our expression in this
> >world (sorry for the dualism)
>
> :-)) Just don't let it happen again.
Hey, what did you mean?
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
>
Do you sign your postings Love, -= Ivan =- because due to your perception
of the One, you can love everybody, since they are all One? In this
connection, is Love a consequence of the realization of the truth or One,
according to Advaita Vedanta?
From now on I will sign mine with ***** because it means something to me and
who cares who I am anyway, it's all an illusion.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
.
> >Crazy wrote:
> Realizaciyata na ne-dualnost unishtozhava vsichko drugo (koeto sqshtestvuva
> v sqstoyanie na dualnost - chovek vlkyuchitelno).
E, tuka mi otgovori na vqprosa dali shte izchezne Ivan tialom i duhom:))
> Fokusirane na vnimanieto vodi do nasilstveno
> anihilirane na mnozhestvoto. Kolkoto po-pqlno e tova anihilirane, tolkova
> po-blizko do ne-dualnost chovek se priblizhava. No za pqlna ne-dualnost,
> dori i ideyata za Edin tryabva da se utrepe.
> Meditaciyata ne e nishtro drugo osven utrepvane na mnozhestvoto.
> Lyubov kqm Bog ne e nishto drugo osven utrepvane na mnozhestvoto.
> Tqrseneto na "nauchna istina" ne e nishto drugo osven utrepvane na
> mnozhestvoto.
Mnogo mi haresvat tezi misli...
>
> Intelektualniya napqn e takqv samo v nachalnata faza. Kqm kraya,
> intelekta sqshto tryabva da se utrepe (po sqshtiya nachin po koyto i obektqt
> na meditaciya tryabva da se utrepe).
Da, tuk namerih bridge. Raznite uchenia/filosofii, koito vodiat kqm the
truth, i ia otraziavat sa kato different facets of the same diamond.
"Utrepvaneto", obache nasilstveno kazvash, stava? Ili estestveno?
S drugi dumi, zapochva se s
> intelektualen napqn, no se privqrshva s neshto drugo. Intelektqt samo vodi
> do ne-dualnost, no ne go postiga.
Aha, sqshtoto vaji i za ego-to.
Taka se poluchava i s meditaciyata (kakto
> spomenah po-gore).
Viarno e.
Kakvo e tova "drugo", trudno e da se kazhe. Nyakoi mu
> vikat "praznota". Drugi mu vikat MU. Treti mu vikat "God's grace".
Kak beshe, "The Name, that cannot be named..."?
> Intelektualniya napqn, za da e polezen ( s smilql postigane na
> ne-dualnost) sqshto tryabva da e nasochen kqm utrepvane na mnozhestvoto ...i
> da zavqrshi s izostavyane na razuma. Inache, mozhe da se napqvash vo veki
> vekov i vse taya shte e.
Dobre, tuk sme v sferata na irrational, obache znaesh li koi mai tsaruva tam?
Poznai!:))
>
> >A znachi li sqshto, che ako
> >izvednqj chovek "useti", che ne e nujno da pravi usilia, da razbira kakvoto
> i
> >da bilo, zashtoto niama kakvo da bqde postignato ili razbrano, zashtoto toi
> e
> >v "One consciousness", v tozi moment Ivan shte izchezne kato tialo, um i
> >dusha i veche ne mojesh go otkri, nito vqv physical, nito v mental, nito v
> >spiritual world, v koito toi i bez tova ne viarva:)
> :-))
> Imah edin podoben razgovor s drug edin chovek predi godini. Ta toy po
> edno vreme me popita neshto podobno. Kaza: ako e vyarno che dualnostta e
> samo ilyuziya i ti kato individ ne sqshtestvuvash realno, shto ne vzemesh da
> presechesh ulicata na cherven svetofar!? Ponezhe kolite sa ilyuziya, kakto
> si i ti, nikoy nyama da te sgazi. :-))) Az mu otgovorih che ako
> ne-dualnostta deystvitelno sqshtestvuva, az sqm toy e sfetofar sa kolite sqm
> tuk e tam. Koy da ide, kakvo da preseche i koy da go blqsne kogato vsichko e
> Edno? Toy ne beshe mnogo vqodusheven ot takqv edin otgovor, no ne mozha da
> izmisli nikakvi vqzrazheniya ...i nyakak si razbra za kakvo stava duma.
> S lyubov,
> -= Ivan =-
Za men smqrtta e dokazatelstvo, che chovek e poveche ot tova, koeto izglejda
da e. Taka che ako te blqsne kola, ti niama da prestanesh da sqshtestvuvash
(pone tova vinagi sqm go chuvstvuvala, predi da sqm chela i bila povliana ot
kakvito i da e uchenia), zashtoto tova, koeto si, ne umira i ne se rajda. No
moje bi toi "sqnuva", che se rajda, che jivee i izpitva radost i mqka i t.n.
i che posle umira.
Crazy
<7ba2sk$a69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Intelektualniya napqn e takqv samo v nachalnata faza. Kqm kraya,
>> intelekta sqshto tryabva da se utrepe (po sqshtiya nachin po koyto i
obektqt
>> na meditaciya tryabva da se utrepe).
>
>truth, i ia otraziavat sa kato different facets of the same diamond.
>"Utrepvaneto", obache nasilstveno kazvash, stava? Ili estestveno?
Ami dori nasilstvenoto si e pak estestveno.
Sefchko Houkin govoreshe che tqrsil bil "teoriya na vsichko" - nyakakva
si tam teoriya koyato da obedini vsichki veche izvestni fizicheski sili i da
gi priobshti kqm edin znamenatel. Za nego vqzniknal vqprosa (mnogo interesen
vqpros) che ako taya teoriya e "teoriya na vsichko", znachi v sebe si shte
vklyuchva obyasnenie i za tiya koito ya pravyat teoriyata - za chovecite -
...i tuk neshtata stavat malko taka zadrqsteni, shtoto ne stava yasno dali
chovecite pravyat teoriyata ili teoriyata pravi chovecite. S drugi dumi (toy
ne go kazva tova, no az go kazvam) sqshtestvuvaneto na takava teoriya "na
vsichko" shte obyasni i nasheto sqzdavane na taya teoriya i po tozi nachin
nie nikoga nyama da sme napqlno sigurni dali nali deystvitelno (obektivno)
znaem kakvoto i da e bilo.
Iskam da kazha che dori utrepvaneto da e nasilsvteno, mozhe bi to e
preopredeleno da se sluchi, i po tozi nachin vsqshtnost e estestveno.
>> Intelektualniya napqn, za da e polezen ( s smilql postigane na
>> ne-dualnost) sqshto tryabva da e nasochen kqm utrepvane na mnozhestvoto
...i
>> da zavqrshi s izostavyane na razuma. Inache, mozhe da se napqvash vo veki
>> vekov i vse taya shte e.
>
>Dobre, tuk sme v sferata na irrational, obache znaesh li koi mai tsaruva
tam?
>Poznai!:))
Ne znam i ne moga da poznaya.
Koy??
trust...@my-dejanews.com
. Deto horata kazvat, "pqteki mnogo, a vqrhqt edin". Vsichki do takiva
> zaklyucheniya stigat, rano ili kqsno, v edna ili druga forma. Problemqt e v
> tova che horata sa
> razlichni i se izrazyavat razlichno, no smisqlqt e edin. Cakata e da mozhe
> da zagreesh che tova koeto kazvat e sqshtoto koeto i ti kazvash, no
> terminologiyata e razlichna, modelqt e drug.
Ivane, az pak se namesvam v razgovor mejdu teb i J., no tqi kato ti veche mi
kaza, che te sa "public", imam si izvinenie:) Mnogo priatno i men me
iznenadaha obiasneniata ti na neia, otkriha mi oshte edna chast ot teb. E, da
ne stavame santimentalni. Ta tova za raznite terminologii e za po-open-minded
people. Niakoi hora taka sa stuck kqm tehnite modeli i terminologii, che me
drazniat ujasno.
> >Ot druga strana mi stana dosadno, che godini sqm pqlziala
> >bavno nagore, nagore kqm otkritiata si, a te v tova vreme sa si
> >sediali nay-spokoyno i definirano - veroyatno ot vekove :((((((
J., sega pqk kqm teb se obrqshtam, ot moia gledna tochka (pozvoli mi, makar
che postinga ti e kqm Ivan), ti imash silna intuitsia i viarno useshtane i
znanie, koeto ti ide "otvqtre" i si imash svoi si krila.
Bez pqlzene ne mozhe. Nyama
> sqmnenie che horata sa "otkrivali" i "definirali" sqshtoto tova koeto i nie
> sega otrkivame i definirame, no te sa si gi otkrivali i definirali za tyah
> si, kakto i nie za nas si. Vyarno, napisali sa te sveshtenite knigi, kakto i
> nie sega si pishem (nesveshtenni) prashtulki, s nadezhdata che i drugi mozhe
> bi da "zagreyat", no to zagryavaneto taka ne stava. Chetesh, chetesh...
> potish se, potish se (da go razberesh)... posle pak chetesh ...posle se
> napiesh i psuvash, posle chetesh... i se mqchish da otkriesh za kakvo
> tochno, adzheba, govoryat tiya i hem ti e yasno, hem ne. Gorchivata istina
> e che kolkoto i umni da sa tiya hora, kolkoto i sladkodumni da sa i kolkoto
> i prosto i yasno e tova koeto go pishat (i govoryat),
Hey, kolko viarno. Tuk se vdqhnovih da tsitiram niakoi misli ot "The Prophet"
na Khalil Gibran (poetichna mqdrost:)).
No man can reveal to you aught that which already lies half asleep in the
dawning of your knowledge. The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple,
among his followers, gives not of his wisdom, but rather of his faith and
lovingness. If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his
wisdom, but rather leads you to the treshold of your own mind. The astronomer
may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his
understanding. The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all
space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice
that echoes it. For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.
And even as each of you stands alone God's knowledge, so must each one of you
be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth.
Hubavo beshe da razbera i az po kakqv pqt sa te vodili tia duhovni stremeji.
Neshto mi napomnia i na moia pqt. E, ne sqm minala prez sqshtite i moje bi
neprez tolkova mnogo uchenia, no i az zapochnah s Yoga (Hatha Yoga), i sqm
chela Blavatska, suma ti indiiski, kitaiski mqdretsi, imah edna kaseta za
Zen, no tam ne zadqlbah, egipetski daje. I tova beshe po vremeto kogato
sledvah biologia, zatova i uchih biologia, no tia samo me zavede pak pri
Iztoka...kakto pri teb. E, i az nakraia namerih neshto, koeto napqlno vqvede
v harmonia mqchitelnite mi tqrsenia i chastichni znania. No kakto ti kazvash,
pqlzeneto si ostava... No zashto i dvamata govorite za naivnost i fanatizqm
vqv vsichko indiisko? Viarno e, ima gi v mnogo uchenia, no ne vqv vsichki.
Napravo me boli, che taka mislite...
>
> Glavnata shema tvoya tryabva da si e. Kvoto i da ti kazha, puknata para
> ne chini ako nyakak si ti ne ya pretvorish v neshto lichno tvoe si.
Viarno e, J. Podkrepiam Ivan tuka. Makar i bez negovo sqglasie:)
All the best to both of you, J. and Ivan!
us...@vogon.com
wrote:
>
> Ami dori nasilstvenoto si e pak estestveno.
> Sefchko Houkin govoreshe che tqrsil bil "teoriya na vsichko" - nyakakva
>si tam teoriya koyato da obedini vsichki veche izvestni fizicheski sili i da
>gi priobshti kqm edin znamenatel. Za nego vqzniknal vqprosa (mnogo interesen
>vqpros) che ako taya teoriya e "teoriya na vsichko", znachi v sebe si shte
>vklyuchva obyasnenie i za tiya koito ya pravyat teoriyata - za chovecite -
>...i tuk neshtata stavat malko taka zadrqsteni...
Ama Stefcho malko e zakqsnjal, Douglas Adams veche e publikuval
otgovora za Zhivota, Vselenata i Vsichko Ostanalo [42]
Cheers,
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz
woman...@my-dejanews.com
I novi Dushi se poyaviha! Imalo i drugi neshta po Sveta, osven politika i
ikonomika :))))))))))))))))))))))
J./Mqlchalivo!/
In article <36dc3a62...@news.megsinet.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Crazy
>On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:02:41 -0500, "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Ami dori nasilstvenoto si e pak estestveno.
>> Sefchko Houkin govoreshe che tqrsil bil "teoriya na vsichko" -
nyakakva
>>si tam teoriya koyato da obedini vsichki veche izvestni fizicheski sili i
da
>>gi priobshti kqm edin znamenatel. Za nego vqzniknal vqprosa (mnogo
interesen
>>vqpros) che ako taya teoriya e "teoriya na vsichko", znachi v sebe si shte
>>vklyuchva obyasnenie i za tiya koito ya pravyat teoriyata - za chovecite -
>>...i tuk neshtata stavat malko taka zadrqsteni...
>
>Ama Stefcho malko e zakqsnjal, Douglas Adams veche e publikuval
>otgovora za Zhivota, Vselenata i Vsichko Ostanalo [42]
Taka li? Za tova ne znaeh.
I kakqv e otgovora za Zhivota, Vselenata i Vsichko Ostanalo (spored
Douglas Adams)?
Crazy
<7b9pog$35p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> Yes - time, space and everything in between is a dualistic concept.
Time
>> arises with the creation of the illusion (that is, the creation of the
>> material universe) and time ceases to exist with it's destruction ...
>
>And how is the universe destroyed, according to Adv. Vedanta? Just by you
>realizing the One, or in some other way?
By realizing the One.
>By the way, I am very interested in your spiritual experiences and may be
>it's not a good thing to pry like that, but if you ever feel like
sharing...
I wish I could say that I
saw God and She was a beautiful blond, young and blessed in all respects and
She smiled heavenly to me and said "Honey-babe, you're my Son on Earth. I've
been waiting for you for so long - you have finaly come!!" and She put Her
hand on my bowed head and blessed me so that I instantly knew the past,
present and future and could preach Her Word to all human kind. :-))
Instead, it was more ...trivial, I guess. In any case, it's not
something I'd discuss in public. For some reason, an experience of this kind
strikes me as personal and intimate and even though I'm far away from being
shy, :-)) in this particular instance I feel certain reluctance to get into
it.
>O.K. now I understand more - a key for achieving Liberation is to clean up
>the mind.
>
> That realization of "I" being "It", is called Liberation.
Yes. Or alternatively, the realization that there never was an "I"
separate from "it" is called Liberation.
>> To Vedanta, of course, none of that matters much. As long as you
>>realize
>> that Unity, it is up to you if you want to believe in a soul, a mind or
>> whatever and it is up to you to establish the relationships between these
>> terms.
>Yes, that makes sense, that actually the simplest minds are more open to
>the truth and mere beliefs won't get you anywhere. But then if realization
is
>all you want, how do you get it?
By practicing a spiritual discipline of some sorts, by devotion, by
work, by an intellectual effort, etc. etc. We already talked about this.
>Or you say, follow whatever feels right to
>you?
>As long as it gets you there? Or does it offer a separate, unique model.
>Because even if it's just focusing on the truth, that's not as simple as it
>sounds. I heard a story, whereby a dsisciple-to-be asked his Master-to-be
>for his initiation. The Master said: "You can have it tomorrow, if you can
>spend one night in isolation, in a cave:)), and think of anything you want,
>except of crocodiles." Simple enough? On the next morning the disciple
returned to
>the Master, only to confess that he hadn't been able to think of anything
>else, except crocodiles. There are techings that profess stopping the mind
>and concentration, but they do not seem to be so easy to achieve. What's
>your side of that?
My take on this is that teachings that profess in stopping the mind are
riddled with symbolism and metaphysics and most people who enter such a
teaching stop right at that level. They get so involved in figuring out the
mantras, the yantras and all the technicalities involved that they forget
(or maybe never knew it) that the purpose of concentration is to clean up
the mind from multiplicity and promote unity, achieve the mind being fixed
on a single object (be it God, an idea, an artifact of some kind or
something else). Hence, teachings such as tantra, quaballah, esoteric
christianity, sufism etc. etc. are difficult to follow. On the other side,
teachings such as Zen, are easier to swallow since sitting is sitting and
meditation is meditations.
>> >
> Vedanta does teach that a purely intellectual effort is the
>> prefered way to understand non-duality. One simply begins to reason until
>> one figures it all out.
>
>So that's what most of my talking above was about. How do you make this
>intellectual effort?
Thinking about the nature of the "I" (answering the question "Who is th
e 'I'") and about the nature of what's around you.
>
>Here I would not agree with you. Emotions and love and Divine Love are
>definitely different.
Maybe so. But these are technicalities. Divine Love for most people
never really becomes "divine". Love is love - it's emotion.
> And it seems that Vedanta places the intelellectual
>effort higher than Love, is that so? Or considers it to be the most
>effective?
Yes. It considers is the most direct way of knowing Onenness, but I
think it is the most difficult one as well.
>> Well, kind of. The other side of the equation is that I have tried
>>other things and they haven't worked. ...Or maybe I didn't think it wise
to
>>spent fifty years medidating under a tree, after which something *might*
>>happen. :-))
>This seems to be true. But does you "method" work faster?
Not really. Same thing works differently for different people. I suppose
I was predisposed towards this one method (that is, my background and
personality were suited for it better). For others devotion, or meditation
or something else may work much better and results achieved much quicker.
>> >But it's hard to control Love or
>> >even have love by will, isn't it.
>>
>> True.
>> But it is so easy to completely lose yourself in Love...
>
>Hey, do you mean losing your self, by any chance?:))) It sounds familiar:))
It's a play of words, a pun. But it is true.
>> >While you can chose to think almost any
>> >thought you wish to, with some self-discipline. But our expression in
>>>this world (sorry for the dualism)
>>
>> :-)) Just don't let it happen again.
>
>Hey, what did you mean?
Nothing. I'm bullshiting, pulling your leg, playing around... having
fun. :-))
>
>> Love,
>> -= Ivan =-
>>
>
>Do you sign your postings Love, -= Ivan =- because due to your
>perception of the One, you can love everybody, since they are all One?
Hardly. :-)))
It's a long story, but the jest of it is that I have a long and colorful
history of posting. In my younger years on the Net, I was very prone to
fights, clashes and various mischiefs that used to piss off many people
(while pleasing others, obviously) and after a heavy dose of sarcasm,
witticism, vulgarities and occasional seriousness, "love" at the end came as
an icing on the cake so to speak. From me, in those days, it was taken as
another heavy piece of sarcasm, an insult. ...I was banned from two mailing
lists just for exercising my freedom of speech. :-)) ...and these were
supposed to be non-moderated, free-for-all lists. It just gives you some
indication what a bad boy I was. Anyhow, you can imagine that after cussing
the shit out of some poor schmuck, completely destroying him (mostly through
humor) and then finishing with "Love" is extremely inappropriate ...which
made it perfect for me. :-)))
The other side of the story is that my social and political vews were
(are??) rather conservative and I'm not particularly fond of "alternative"
movements, including feminazis, save-the-whalers, liberal blubbering idiots,
new-agers and other assorted "freely thinking" crowds. So, finishing off
with something like "Hugs and kisses" or "Smooch" or "Love You All" or just
"Love" was another way of poking fun at these people. Well, somehow "Love"
stuck so I stayed with it, even though I have mellowed down some and my
views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
anyone cares to make the distinction).
>In this
>connection, is Love a consequence of the realization of the truth or One,
>according to Advaita Vedanta?
Well, that's true.
But the fact that in a serious discussion about spirituality love
happens to be Love happens to be God happens to be One, is more of a
coincidence (with how I sign off) then anything else. Such discussions
though are extremely rare and so a possible misunderstanding hasn't been a
problem.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
Zdravko Kolev
: Po otnoshenie na carnivorous character : choveka ne shte da e proizliazyl ot
: maimuna, a ot vylk, tigyr ili grizli.
E, haide sega da ne obizhdame zhivotnite ;)
Zdravko
ve...@usa.net
grg...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7acstj$jhl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Ta,
> > znachi, in the astral world ima t. nar. akashic records kqdeto se pazi
> > "znanieto za sveta", kakto i za vseki individualen chovek. Za niakoi, koito
e
> > v sqstoianie da "otide tam i prochete", bi mogql da si dostavi vsiaka
> > neobhodima informatsia. Razbira se, ne e nujno da viarvate v tova, i
> > poniakoga e po-dobre da ne viarvate, zashtoto kolkoto e lesno chovek da
> > izpadne v klopka na sobstvenite si ili chujdi sqjdenia po otnoshenie na
> > niakoia prirodna nauka, tolkova e po-lesno tova da stane s takiva tqnki
> > neshta kato pronikvane do znanieto v po-finite niva. I e mnogo trudno da se
> > pretseni dali edin chovek, koito vi kazva, che e bil tam, naistina e bil
tam.
>
> Zdrasti, Lili,
>
> Az lichno sym mnogo liubopiten da vidia chovek, koito moje tova. Vidial sym
> mnogo, koito pretendirat da go mogat. Tezi ot tiah, koito sa se syglasili da
> uchastvat v elementaren eksperiment pred men, sa se provaliali bez nito edno
> izkliuchenie.
I az sqm lybopiten, ama te kazvat tce ako ne vyarvash magiyata nema da hvane.
Ne si li gi tcuval cigankite pred Sheraton: "Bate sega she davash 20 leva
(may sa mi mnogo stari spomenite) za da hvane magiyata." Vinagi mi e bilo
interesno kak taka hora s takiva idealistitcni razbiraniya imat tokova
materialni interesi.
> Zatova i ne viarvam, che tova e taka, ili che e vyzmojno. Gotov sym obache da
> reviziram mnenieto si, ako niakoi mi dokaje protivnoto - t.e. ako mi predskaje
> neshto ot bydeshteto, koeto e proverimo (kogato stane), no inache ne e
> predskazuemo. Sluchaino da poznavate niakoi, koito da bi se osmelil da opita?
O da poznavame. Po televiziyata postoyanno gi pokazvat call 1 900 SCR EWED $
3.99/min. Moje da se konsultirash s psychic na zvezdi za nyakakvi si mizerni
3.99/min. Prigotvi si kreditnata karta.
Predi vreme imashe edna mnogo hubava karikatura. Edin stoi na telefona i
kazva: "Kato si psychic zashto me pitash za nomera na creditnata mi karta?"
Dokato ima hora koito tqrsyat podobni uslugi shte ima i tarikati da gi
pribirat. Daje i slujbi kato CIA i KGB sa imali proekti na tazi tema.
Da me izvinyava Lili tce i razvalyam idealisticnata diskusiya, ama ne mojah da
se sdqrja:))).
Vesco - budala deto se blqska da tqrsi indirektni pqtishta kqm istinata vmesto
da se vturne po praviya pqt.
> Grigor Gatchev
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
> >By the way, I am very interested in your spiritual experiences and may be
> >it's not a good thing to pry like that, but if you ever feel like
> sharing...
>
> I wish I could say that I
> saw God and She was a beautiful blond, young and blessed in all respects and
> She smiled heavenly to me and said "Honey-babe, you're my Son on Earth. I've
> been waiting for you for so long - you have finaly come!!" and She put Her
> hand on my bowed head and blessed me so that I instantly knew the past,
> present and future and could preach Her Word to all human kind. :-))
> Instead, it was more ...trivial, I guess. In any case, it's not
> something I'd discuss in public. For some reason, an experience of this kind
> strikes me as personal and intimate and even though I'm far away from being
> shy, :-)) in this particular instance I feel certain reluctance to get into
> it.
Oh, I didn't expect an answer at all. You always manage to surprise me. It's
nice you answer all my questions, and seriously;))And I appreciate your
reluctance to share it. But yes, it's not a good thing to discuss your
spiritual experiences with anybody, except, may be with just a few... I find
it hard because if anything like that "happens to me" which is not that often
in my case, I always have the urge to share it:(( But afterwards I somehow
feel a loss of some kind.... I did this once with a friend and after I shared
something, he said:"Oh, I have never experienced anything like that", so this
took away from the joy... And who knows, may be I was even about to feel
proud of myself:((
And if your Divine Lover was that attractive and lovable, wouldn't you want
to stay with her forever (as One) rather than go back into the "dark old
world" and preach? Oh, if she asked you to do that, then you couldn't refuse
Her, but if She/He :) didn't, then why do it? And how many would believe you
anyway? It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution from the
(how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of humankind. One
could only do that out of Love, wouldn't you agree:)))?
> if realization
> is
> >all you want, how do you get it?
>
> By practicing a spiritual discipline of some sorts, by devotion, by
> work, by an intellectual effort, etc. etc. We already talked about this.
> >Because even if it's just focusing on the truth, that's not as simple as it
> >sounds.
>
> My take on this is that teachings that profess in stopping the mind are
> riddled with symbolism and metaphysics and most people who enter such a
> teaching stop right at that level. They get so involved in figuring out the
> mantras, the yantras and all the technicalities involved that they forget
> (or maybe never knew it) that the purpose of concentration is to clean up
> the mind from multiplicity and promote unity, achieve the mind being fixed
> on a single object
I have found some teachings that analyze the nature of the mind which might
not be a bad thing to consider, leading, I think, to better understanding of
oneself. But forceful stopping of the mind is a delusion, and it's true that
if one tries to stop their mind they will be bitterly dissapointed, as you
said, they would get stuck in the technical problem of doing that.
How do you make this
> >intellectual effort?
>
> Thinking about the nature of the "I" (answering the question "Who is th
> e 'I'") and about the nature of what's around you.
O.K., I have now some satisfaction that at least something is clear to me
(regarding your system) and I can slow down my asking questions a little bit;)
> > Emotions and love and Divine Love are
> >definitely different.
>
> Maybe so. But these are technicalities. Divine Love for most people
> never really becomes "divine". Love is love - it's emotion.
I don't really want to get entangled in a senseless arguing about love/Love
because who can benefit from such a thing, you or me? Let me make an attempt
to give some part of my side about that, briefly. I think that people ascribe
many things to love that don't really belong there, I don't claim to
understand it all, if I did, I wouldn't be writing to you now. Because, as
someone nicely said, those who talk, don't know, and those who do, don't
talk:) SO I guess I am talking from a "twilight zone" between knowing and
ignorance. So people talk about love, and I do, and they don't know it. But
they have the "stamp" from it in their souls. And they know it at the same
time. The way they know is not in words. It's a gentle presence, that hides
and shies away easily, but there are moments when it shines through, even if
it is for a second. Have you had the experience when it just "hits" you and
you need time to think about it and realize what that was? And have you ever
felt that if you talked about it, or even thought about it long enough, you
lost something from it? that the initial beauty and magic was going away
slowly but surely? It almost seems that "coming to a harsher world, so to
speak", Love withered because it couldn't survive the poisonous:) fumes :((
But have you also experienced the power, freedom and joy it gives you, all
those things you received as a gift, and feel like a "crowned prince" (in the
spiritual sense). Even if it was for a moment, it was real, at that moment.
And afterwards, sometimes if you tried to cling hard to it, that didn't help.
And afterwards all these other things came that you attached to that love,
and identified them with it? I am just telling you these because it's hard to
relate unless you experience it. Love is. And depending on what you love, you
tend to absorb it's qualities, because love is identification with the
object. And it's easy, I don't think it's easier for women to love but who
knows... Love gives you wings that pure intellect can't. It's almost as if
love and intellect belong to separate worlds but they reside together in the
human being, usually the priority given to the intellect. Well, intellect is
what governs this world, wouldn't you agree? And definitely has the
appearance of having much more power, making more sense and providing more
stability. This is the official "veruyu" of everybody. That's how people
function, they need to think everything through. Is it possible there are
things one cannot think through, where intellect is helpless, has its
limitations and can do no more? There, that's where love will take you
further, where the intellect has no say, no power, into the irrational.
That's where, in the irrational - love governs there. I don't need you to
agree or disagree, and I am not placing it against anything you've said so
far, but just wanted to share a little bit.
> > And it seems that Vedanta places the intelellectual
> >effort higher than Love, is that so? Or considers it to be the most
> >effective?
>
> Yes. It considers is the most direct way of knowing Onenness, but I
> think it is the most difficult one as well.
>
>
> >This seems to be true. But does you "method" work faster?
>
> Not really. Same thing works differently for different people. I suppose
> I was predisposed towards this one method (that is, my background and
> personality were suited for it better). For others devotion, or meditation
> or something else may work much better and results achieved much quicker.
>
> >> >But it's hard to control Love or
> >> >even have love by will, isn't it.
> >>
> >> True.
> >> But it is so easy to completely lose yourself in Love...
> >
> >Hey, do you mean losing your self, by any chance?:))) It sounds familiar:))
>
> It's a play of words, a pun. But it is true.
:))))))))))))))))))))
> >> >While you can chose to think almost any
> >> >thought you wish to, with some self-discipline. But our expression in
> >>>this world (sorry for the dualism)
> >>
> >> :-)) Just don't let it happen again.
> >
> >Hey, what did you mean?
>
> Nothing. I'm bullshiting, pulling your leg, playing around... having
> fun. :-))
>
> >
> >> Love,
> >> -= Ivan =-
> >>
> (while pleasing others, obviously) and after a heavy dose of sarcasm,
> witticism, vulgarities and occasional seriousness, "love" at the end came as
> an icing on the cake so to speak.
Interesting, really.
...I was banned from two mailing
> lists just for exercising my freedom of speech.
Were you a little proud of that?
It just gives you some
> indication what a bad boy I was.
I don't know, there is a reason for everything that you can find sooner or
later. Was your tolerance level lower than it is now;)
Anyhow, you can imagine that after cussing
> the shit out of some poor schmuck, completely destroying him (mostly through
> humor) and then finishing with "Love" is extremely inappropriate
Ha, you like being inappropriate? Like a little child almost;)))
I feel respect for people who csan do such things with humor because I can't.
...which
> made it perfect for me. :-)))
Well, it's hard for me to relate really, but may be I could if it were a
person who has "danced on my nerves long enough".
> The other side of the story is that my social and political vews were
> (are??) rather conservative and I'm not particularly fond of "alternative"
> movements, including feminazis, save-the-whalers, liberal blubbering idiots,
> new-agers and other assorted "freely thinking" crowds. So, finishing off
> with something like "Hugs and kisses" or "Smooch" or "Love You All" or just
> "Love" was another way of poking fun at these people.
Well, somehow "Love"
> stuck so I stayed with it,
:))))))))))))
Sticky stuff, ha?
even though I have mellowed down some and my
> views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
> anyone cares to make the distinction).
What is liberatarian, I've never heard the word, I don't think. Is it not
quite liberal but not too conservative either?
> >In this
> >connection, is Love a consequence of the realization of the truth or One,
> >according to Advaita Vedanta?
>
> Well, that's true.
> But the fact that in a serious discussion about spirituality love
> happens to be Love happens to be God happens to be One, is more of a
> coincidence (with how I sign off) then anything else. Such discussions
> though are extremely rare and so a possible misunderstanding hasn't been a
> problem.
>
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
Well, I am glad that you think that love is Love is God is One.
Lili
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
> >Tozi
> >primer go davam samo kato iliustratsia, che pqtishtata do istinata mai sa
> >ot niakolko vida - indirektni (chrez nauka, vqzhvala na naukata, nishto
> protiv
> >neia niamam) i direktni - a kak imenno stava tova?
>
> Indirektno poznavane na sveta stava chrez polzuvane na setivata.
> Direknoto poznavane izklyuchva setivata.
> Svetqt se sqstoi ot dve ...: Forma i Sqshtnost. Sqshtnostta opredelya
> Formata. Chrez poznanie na Formata dostigame do poznanie na Sqshtnostta. No
> Formata e predelna, zavisima ot kachestva (chrez setivata) i prehodna.
> Formata ni dava samo chastichna, izopachena predstava za Sqshtnostta.
> Formite sa mnogo. Sqshtnostta, ot druga strana e bezpredelna, nezavisima ot
> kachestva i neprehodna. Sqhstnostta e edna. Direktno vqrzpriemane na
> Sqshtnostta e poznanieto i v cyalost, takava kakvato e.
> Por ejemplo: Duh e Sqshtnost. Bog e Forma. Tiya dvete sa edno i sqshto
> neshto. Bog e Forma ponezhe Bog e s kachestva - Bog e milosqrden,
> vseznaesht, sprevedliv i prochee. Obache ponezhe Formite sa mnogo, razlichni
> kachestva se pripisvat na Duha (kato Bog) v zavisimost ot narodnost,
> istoriya i prochee. Hristiyanskiya Bog ima edni kachestva, evreiskiya Bog -
> drugi, mohamedanskiya Bog - treti. Obache tqy kato vsichki Formi vodyat do
> ednata, edinstvenata Sqshtnost, vsichki Bogove sa ediniya i edinstveniya
> Duh. I zatova mnogo ot kachestvata sa podobni ili napravo edni i sqshti.
> Duhqt mozhe da se poznava direktno ...koeto e trudno da se obyasni i malko
> sa horata sposobni na podobno poznanie (kakto i samata Vie otbelyasahte).
> Nedirektno, Duh se poznava kato Bog, chrez poznavane na kachestvata mu i
> izuchavane na sqotvetnata religiya. No podobno poznanie e poznanie na Forma,
> i poradi tova e chastichno. Po-pqlno poznanie se postiga ako se poznae
> sqshtiya toya Duh pod druga Forma. S drugi dumi, izuchavaneto na edna druga
> religiya i poznanieto na Bog s drugi (podobni) kachestva vodi do po-vyarno
> poznanie na Duha. I prochee. Obache samo direktniya metod na znanie vodi do
> pqlno razbirane na Duha, na Sqshtnostta na Gospoda nash.
>
> >E, iavno ne vseki moje
> >da
> >ima dostqp do direktnia nachin po edna ili druga prichina, ili stepenta na
> >dostqpa moje da varira, a kakto znaete, malkoto znanie e opasno znanie,
> >zashtoto s nego moje da se spekulira, da se preuvelichi i drugi podobni.
>
> Ne che e opasno, prosto e chastichno. Naukata, kato poznanie na forma,
> zaviseshta ot setivata i razuma, dava samo chastichna, nepqlna predstava za
> Sqshtnostta narichana Realnost. No naukata nyama pretencii za neshto drugo.
>
> >Az
> >ot godini imam interes kqm, kak da go narechem, mistichnoto, i sqm chela
> >knigi po razni vqprosi. Razbira se, da chetesh knigi i da imash experience,
> >sa dve razlichni neshta, no vse pak, da rechem intuitsiata me e vodila, if
> >you know what I mean.
>
> :-)) Aha, znam kakvo miinvate.
> Malko me sqmnyava che Jeni shte uznae ISTINATA, pa dori i ako se digne v
> astralnoto si tyalo i taka poseti Zemyata Na Drevnite Akashici. :-))
:)))))))))))))))))))))))))
> >i dokato tova ne
> >stane, tia shte triabva da razchita na poznanieto, koeto predlagat
> sqvremennite
> >istoritsi.
>
> ...koeto, bivashto Forma, e mnogoobrazno, osporvano i obqrkvashto,
> chastichno i predelno. Za kvo ti e togava takova poznanie?
Ami taka de...
> Ako Jeni naistina iska da znae ISTINATA, tya sigurno shte tryabva da
> ostavi istoriyata i istoricite i da se obqrne kqm ...neshto po-direktno.
> Vyarno che nishto ne kazah po vqprosa za tova kak tochno stava tova
> "direktno poznanie" ama to vsichko na edin pqt ne stava.
> S lyubov,
> -= Ivan =-
E, kak sqm mogla da propusna tozi posting, ta chak dnes go cheta, ne znam. Ta
toi e ot predi niakolko sedmitsi! Znachi sqm imala otklik ot tebe i togava,
samo ne sqm go znaela... A az si misleh, che az zapochnah razgovora:( Vsichko
tuk e mnogo hubavo i otkroveno, i dobre, che e taka, zashtoto az imam
tendentsiata da izpliuvam "na chas po lqjichka" i da davam nepqlna predstava
za tova, koeto mislia, chuvstvuvam i t.n. No postinga mi beshe "proben", za
"proverka na pochvata", neshto kato razmahvane na rqtse v tqmnoto, i da vidia
shte se zakachi li neshto ili ne;)) E, kakvo da se pravi, takqv mi e podhoda,
parila sqm se:( Mnogo mi haresva "duhovnia humor", vsichko niakak si olekva i
ne e tiagostno. Tezi neshta, koito si pisal togava, sa blizki do men, no
kazani s drugi dumi. Interesno mi e da chuvam razlichni terminologii,
deistvuvat osvejavashto.
woman...@my-dejanews.com
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
...mnogo vqzvisheni neshta za Istini, neIstini, kak vseki gi
postiga, kak niama edna istina za vsichki... Mnogo sladki
prikazki!
No vsqshtnost izleze edin goliam bullshit! Ili fashkia - na
tursko-bqlgarski!
Nikoy vsqshtnost niama pravo na istina, koyato da ne e
udobrena ot Ivan - s liubov!
Hehe!
Az veche ne mu viarvam za nishto, Lili! Lustro i lakirovka -
spored krika na modata...
No i tva e do vreme. Posle se pokazva obiknoveno
istinskata koja - ili na vqlk, ili na akula, poniakoga na
chakal... Zavisi na koe stqpalce na stqlbicata shte se
pokateri. I to ne stqlbata na Evoliuciata, uvi :~(((
J.
Crazy
>And if your Divine Lover was that attractive and lovable, wouldn't you want
>to stay with her forever (as One) rather than go back into the "dark old
>world" and preach?
Whatever happens, happens for Her sake. So, if I'm in the "dark old
world" preaching, it's also for Her sake. And how is it that the world is
old and dark if it is Her world, the world She created?
>Oh, if she asked you to do that, then you couldn't
>refuse
>Her, but if She/He :) didn't, then why do it?
Out of boredome, I guess. :-))
Or maybe because She is so attractive and lovable that I want to share
Her with everybody else.
>And how many would believe
>you anyway?
Who cares? If I preach, it's not for their sake. It's for Her sake!
>It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
>hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
>ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution from
>the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of humankind.
Not if you're Jesus Christ!
>One could only do that out of Love, wouldn't you agree:)))?
Yup. Love and Sacrifice is our lot. :-))
It's a hard job, but someone's gotta do it.
>> > Emotions and love and Divine Love are
>> >definitely different.
>>
>> Maybe so. But these are technicalities. Divine Love for most people
>> never really becomes "divine". Love is love - it's emotion.
>
>I don't really want to get entangled in a senseless arguing about
>love/Love
>because who can benefit from such a thing, you or me?
Both of us. ...And maybe few shy lurkers.
>Let me make an attempt
>to give some part of my side about that, briefly. I think that people
>ascribe many things to love that don't really belong there,
Like what?
Brief is nice, but that's a bit too brief. :-)
I> don't claim to
>understand it all, if I did, I wouldn't be writing to you now. Because, as
>someone nicely said, those who talk, don't know, and those who do, don't
>talk:)
The phrase shouldn't be taken literally. After all, the one who said
that, did she know or did she not know when she said it?
It's a lot like the one who said: "I'm a liar!" Was he?
>SO I guess I am talking from a "twilight zone" between knowing and
>ignorance.
But that's the only state that matters - the "twilight zone", since when
knowing and not-knowing are eliminated, the One shines.
>So people talk about love, and I do, and they don't know it.
>But
>they have the "stamp" from it in their souls. And they know it at the same
>time. The way they know is not in words. It's a gentle presence, that hides
>and shies away easily, but there are moments when it shines through, even
>if it is for a second. Have you had the experience when it just "hits" you
and
>you need time to think about it and realize what that was?
Yes. As a matter of fact, I've been "hit" so hard, that it shattered my
imaterial body to pieces. It wraped my aura to such an extend that any aural
bodyshop I went to refused to patch me up. Ever since that moment, the
harmonics at which my Personal Atman broadcasts have been altered and even I
have sometimes problems understanding Her, much less anyone else. Or, to say
it in a more understanding manner, the front drive of my all-terain Cosmic
Vehicle is
out of alignment.
>And have you ever
>felt that if you talked about it, or even thought about it long enough, you
>lost something from it? that the initial beauty and magic was going away
>slowly but surely? It almost seems that "coming to a harsher world, so to
>speak", Love withered because it couldn't survive the poisonous:) fumes :((
It happens because trying to express the Limitless via the Limited is
always a process of taking away. But it is unavoidable, if you're ever to
talk about it.
>what governs this world, wouldn't you agree? And definitely has the
>appearance of having much more power, making more sense and providing more
>stability. This is the official "veruyu" of everybody. That's how people
>function, they need to think everything through. Is it possible there are
>things one cannot think through, where intellect is helpless, has its
>limitations and can do no more?
Yes, it's possible. Not only possible but axiomatic.
Philosophy follows the same rules of logic that science follows. The
reasoning process is identical. Well, while phylosophy has "blindly"
assumed that reason maybe cannot exhaust Reality, science has demonstrated
that in a definite manner.
>There, that's where love will take you
>further, where the intellect has no say, no power, into the irrational.
>That's where, in the irrational - love governs there. I don't need you to
>agree or disagree, and I am not placing it against anything you've said so
>far, but just wanted to share a little bit.
Nice sharing. I enjoy it.
> ...I was banned from two mailing
>> lists just for exercising my freedom of speech.
>
>Were you a little proud of that?
Proud?? No, not really. If anything I was more upset, annoyed and
aggravated, then anything else.
> It just gives you some
>> indication what a bad boy I was.
>
>I don't know, there is a reason for everything that you can find sooner or
>later. Was your tolerance level lower than it is now;)
Yes, very much so. Things that really pissed me off back then, don't
register whole lot now.
> Anyhow, you can imagine that after cussing
>> the shit out of some poor schmuck, completely destroying him (mostly
through
>> humor) and then finishing with "Love" is extremely inappropriate
>
>Ha, you like being inappropriate?
Sure do. :-))
It's not really that I like to. Most often, I have to!
>Like a little child almost;)))
Who was that Son of God who said: "Unless you're like this lil' one"
,(pointing to a child) "you won't enter the Kingdom of God". I think it was
Jesus.
>I feel respect for people who csan do such things with humor because I
>can't.
Why not?
> even though I have mellowed down some and my
>> views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
>> anyone cares to make the distinction).
>
>What is liberatarian, I've never heard the word, I don't think. Is it not
>quite liberal but not too conservative either?
Something like that. In simple terms, libertarians hold conservative
views on economical and fiscal issues, but liberal views on social issues.
For example, they are pro-business, no taxes, blah-blah while at the same
time they are pro-choice, pro-freedom, blah-blah. Kinda the best of both
worlds, imo.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
Lou Poppler
:
: > even though I have mellowed down some and my
: >> views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
: >> anyone cares to make the distinction).
: >
: >What is liberatarian, I've never heard the word, I don't think. Is it not
: >quite liberal but not too conservative either?
Ah, if you are really interested i have a link at my web-page.
Ivan, probably knows that James Brown was a libertarian (kind of) too.
Goodness...
And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
trust...@my-dejanews.com
l...@mail.msen.com (Lou Poppler) wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:29:57 -0500, Crazy (iv...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> :
> : >> views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
> : >> anyone cares to make the distinction).
> : >
> : >What is liberatarian, I've never heard the word, I don't think. Is it not
> : >quite liberal but not too conservative either?
>
> Ivan, probably knows that James Brown was a libertarian (kind of) too.
> Goodness...
Yes, sure, I would like to know. Thanks.
> And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
Sorry for my ignorance again, but who is he?
Thanks again
trust...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Whatever happens, happens for Her sake. So, if I'm in the "dark old
> world" preaching, it's also for Her sake. And how is it that the world is
> old and dark if it is Her world, the world She created?
I meant the world that we perceive with our "gros" senses and that most of us
take to be as the only reality.
Otherwise the world is perfect the way it is, I suppose, how could it not be
if the Only One who really matters and who is, created it. But I "sense" that
there is much more to Life than the reality of this world as it appears, like
there is all this "hidden" beauty and harmony and happiness, existing side by
side with the grosser world, which is grosser because it is perceived by
grosser senses, or senses per se.
>
> >And how many would believe
> >you anyway?
>
> Who cares? If I preach, it's not for their sake. It's for Her sake!
>
> >It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
> >hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
> >ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution from
> >the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of humankind.
>
> Not if you're Jesus Christ!
Oh, you mean that recognition and understanding don't matter if you were J.
Christ? And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't know what
you are talking about doesn't matter either? Don't know. It sure seems to me
that even when you talk out of love for Him/Her and share your Love and Joy,
it will be nice to have a few ones who can embrace the Truth the same way as
you do. And what is more, people would tend to disbelieve a real Son of God,
for one thing the world is full of them candidates, for another most people
don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
> >One could only do that out of Love, wouldn't you agree:)))?
>
> Yup. Love and Sacrifice is our lot. :-))
>
> It's a hard job, but someone's gotta do it.
:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> >
> >I don't really want to get entangled in a senseless arguing about
> >love/Love
> >because who can benefit from such a thing, you or me?
>
> Both of us. ...And maybe few shy lurkers.
Well, if you think so... then we can continue sharing:)
I think that people
> >ascribe many things to love that don't really belong there,
> Like what?
Like ownership, attachment(also a very misused and misunderstood term:() and
others that I won't mention now.
> Brief is nice, but that's a bit too brief. :-)
> I> don't claim to
> >understand it all, if I did, I wouldn't be writing to you now. Because, as
> >someone nicely said, those who talk, don't know, and those who do, don't
> >talk:)
>
> The phrase shouldn't be taken literally. After all, the one who said
> that, did she know or did she not know when she said it?
> It's a lot like the one who said: "I'm a liar!" Was he?
Let's see, I've had times in my life when I would spend a day or two not
talking at all (to anybody), not watching TV or listening to the radio and I
would daydream or meditate or whatever and I did notice a certain
accumulatiion of "spiritual power", certain peace and joy overtaking me that
weren't so usual otherwise. My experience is that talking does dissipate the
perception and as you say, it happens when you try to express the Limitless
via the Limited. So it is like a spiritual law. that's how I understand the
above sentence. I talk because my mind makes me think that by talking I'll
understand more and better. Sometimes I say it and then it appears as a
separate entity which can be viewed from another perspective...
> >SO I guess I am talking from a "twilight zone" between knowing and
> >ignorance.
>
> But that's the only state that matters - the "twilight zone", since when
> knowing and not-knowing are eliminated, the One shines.
>
Have you had the experience when it just "hits" you
> and
> >you need time to think about it and realize what that was?
>
> Yes. As a matter of fact, I've been "hit" so hard, that it shattered my
> imaterial body to pieces. It wraped my aura to such an extend that any aural
> bodyshop I went to refused to patch me up. Ever since that moment, the
> harmonics at which my Personal Atman broadcasts have been altered and even I
> have sometimes problems understanding Her, much less anyone else. Or, to say
> it in a more understanding manner, the front drive of my all-terain Cosmic
> Vehicle is
> out of alignment.
Well, aren't you lucky!:))
> >And have you ever
> >felt that if you talked about it, or even thought about it long enough, you
> >lost something from it? that the initial beauty and magic was going away
> >slowly but surely? It almost seems that "coming to a harsher world, so to
> >speak", Love withered because it couldn't survive the poisonous:) fumes :((
>
> It happens because trying to express the Limitless via the Limited is
> always a process of taking away. But it is unavoidable, if you're ever to
> talk about it.
Right, unfortunately.
> >what governs this world, wouldn't you agree? And definitely has the
> >appearance of having much more power, making more sense and providing more
> >stability. This is the official "veruyu" of everybody. That's how people
> >function, they need to think everything through. Is it possible there are
> >things one cannot think through, where intellect is helpless, has its
> >limitations and can do no more?
>
> Yes, it's possible. Not only possible but axiomatic.
> Philosophy follows the same rules of logic that science follows. The
> reasoning process is identical. Well, while phylosophy has "blindly"
> assumed that reason maybe cannot exhaust Reality, science has demonstrated
> that in a definite manner.
Aha, that's what I discovered from studying biology as well, was helpful to me
that way, just another proof:)
> >There, that's where love will take you
> >further, where the intellect has no say, no power, into the irrational.
> >That's where, in the irrational - love governs.
>
> Nice sharing. I enjoy it.
That's encouraging.
> >Like a little child almost;)))
>
> Who was that Son of God who said: "Unless you're like this lil' one"
> ,(pointing to a child) "you won't enter the Kingdom of God". I think it was
> Jesus.
> >I feel respect for people who can do such things with humor because I
> >can't.
>
> Why not?
Because I have a hard time hurting other people's feelings even if they have
hurt mine, and it looks like putting someone down too much, or degrading them.
Usually the way it works with me is that I come to the end of my patience and
then explode without any humor which is not good:(
But I like your humor otherwise.
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
trust...@my-dejanews.com
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7bq362$s4a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> ...mnogo vqzvisheni neshta za Istini, neIstini, kak vseki gi
> postiga, kak niama edna istina za vsichki... Mnogo sladki
> prikazki!
Tova pqk koga go e pisal, ne si spomniam. pak sqm propusnala neshto.
> No vsqshtnost izleze edin goliam bullshit! Ili fashkia - na
> tursko-bqlgarski!
>
> Nikoy vsqshtnost niama pravo na istina, koyato da ne e
> udobrena ot Ivan - s liubov!
>
> Hehe!
>
> Az veche ne mu viarvam za nishto, Lili! Lustro i lakirovka -
> spored krika na modata...
>
> No i tva e do vreme. Posle se pokazva obiknoveno
> istinskata koja - ili na vqlk, ili na akula, poniakoga na
> chakal... Zavisi na koe stqpalce na stqlbicata shte se
> pokateri. I to ne stqlbata na Evoliuciata, uvi :~(((
>
> J.
Ama kakvo e stanalo mejduvremenno mejdu vas? Az gledah postingite i vidiah
edin po povod na tsarskia proizhod na TJ. Po niakakva prichina tazi ideia go
e "frustrate-nala" mnogo. Chovek poniakoga kato se chuvstvuva bezpomoshten s
argumenti, izpolzva takiva ne-krasivi podhodi. Na men ako niakoi taka mi
govori, az sqshto se ottegliam.Po otnoshenie na Ivan sqm po-biased i mu
viarvam. Osven tova vseki chovek bez izkliuchenie ima tqmna i svetla strana.
Niakoi gi prikrivat po-umelo, drugi ne. Az ne mislia, che toi se starae da si
prikriva tqmnite strani. E, vseki obicha da si pokazva hubavite. Tova ti go
pisha, zashtoto ti se obqrna kqm men. Zatova moje bi triabva i az da se
izkaja za Batenbergskia proizhod na TJ. Ot maika mi znam, che Ferdinand
naistinala e "bil" s vsichkite si pridvorni, zashtoto tia e uchila s vnuchka
na Ferdinand, maika i e bila pridvorna i posle sa ia omqjili za edin bakqrjia
i e imala oshte detsa ot nego. Spored maika mi tia (neinata squchenichka e
bila kopie na tsar Boris i mnogo se e gordeela s tova). Iavno Ferdinand e bil
dosta plodovit, zashtoto tia ne e edinstveniat sluchai. Taka che v tazi
vrqzka i kato pribavish Batenbergskia nos, moje da izglejda pravdopodobno
(spored maika mi, obache, TJ hich ne prilicha na Ferdinand ili na Boris). Ima
sqvremenni metodi za ustanoviavane na bashtinstvo bez sqmnenie i ako se
paziat tlennite ostanki na Tosho i Ferdinand, moje da se udostoveri (za tezi,
koito se interesuvat). Vzimat proba ot kosata, naprimer, proizvejdat mnogo
DNA ot neia, i i praviat RFLP analiz. Ne znam ima li kosa po stari trupove,
obache:( Tuka ima edna bqlgarka, koiato e bila v Bqlgaria po bash
komunistichesko vreme i se e poznavala s roditelite na TJ (chudia se kak gi e
poznavala) i kato i kazah za sluchaia, tvqrdi, che tova e nevqzmojno (t.e. TJ
ne moje da e sin na Ferdinand). Obache priatno bi bilo da si misli chovek,
che tolkova godini vsqshtnost ni e upravliaval tsarskiat sin i mu e bilo
mnogo milo za bqlgarskia narod, taka che razbiram zashto tazi ideia ti e
prisqrtse. I dotuk svqrshvam s moite naviavashti-na-politicheski izkazvania,
zashtoto ne mi se iska da zatqvam tam.
S privet
Lili
Dimitar Gueorguiev
>
> > And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
>
> Sorry for my ignorance again, but who is he?
>
Imashe edin chudesen film "Portokal s chasovnikov mehanisym". Davaha go v kino
"Durjba" :)
GS
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7bul39$jee$1...@ink.msen.com>,
> l...@mail.msen.com (Lou Poppler) wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:29:57 -0500, Crazy (iv...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> > :
> > : > even though I have mellowed down some and my
> > : >> views have turned a bit libertarian (instead of just "conservative", if
> > : >> anyone cares to make the distinction).
> > : >
> > : >What is liberatarian, I've never heard the word, I don't think. Is it not
> > : >quite liberal but not too conservative either?
> >
> > Ah, if you are really interested i have a link at my web-page.
> > Ivan, probably knows that James Brown was a libertarian (kind of) too.
> > Goodness...
>
> Yes, sure, I would like to know. Thanks.
>
> > And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
>
> Sorry for my ignorance again, but who is he?
>
> Thanks again
>
Famous original rock and roll star.
Crazy
>> > And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
>>
>> Sorry for my ignorance again, but who is he?
>>
>> Thanks again
>
>Famous original rock and roll star.
HUh?? No.
Stanley Kubrick is a very cool director ...of a cult status. The
mainstream knows him for a Full Metal Jacket, while everyone else knows him
for Clockwork Orange.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
woman...@my-dejanews.com
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Ama kakvo e stanalo mejduvremenno mejdu vas? Az gledah postingite i vidiah
> edin po povod na tsarskia proizhod na TJ. Po niakakva prichina tazi ideia go
> e "frustrate-nala" mnogo.
Mmmdaaa... Malko prekaleno mnogo, che da si zagubi dori
proslovutoto chuvstvo za humor. I da stigne v Bitkata si
sreshu men, nasajdashtata vreden Praveshki Monarhizqm
do pqrvoprichinata - Evreystvoto, kato prichina za
okayanoto polojenie na bqlgarchetata...
Kakto pisah v sqshtiat post - de go chukah, de se pukna!
No pri malko naprejenie vseki se izdqnva na spukanite si
mesta - lepenkite ne izdqrjat, lakirovkata poddava i se lqsva
goliat zadnik na istinata.
Ti ne si capay dushata s takiva neshta - ima vereme!
> Chovek poniakoga kato se chuvstvuva bezpomoshten s
> argumenti, izpolzva takiva ne-krasivi podhodi. Na men ako niakoi taka mi
> govori, az sqshto se ottegliam.
Az, malko predi da se otteglia - hapia :))) Ne obicham
loshite hora da se chuvstvat prekaleno konfortno okolo
men. Kogato sbqrkam v precenkata si - sluchva se chesto -
se izviniavam i daje mi e naistina mqchno. No sega mislia,
che ne sbqrkah...
> Po otnoshenie na Ivan sqm po-biased i mu
> viarvam. Osven tova vseki chovek bez izkliuchenie ima tqmna i svetla strana.
> Niakoi gi prikrivat po-umelo, drugi ne. Az ne mislia, che toi se starae da si
> prikriva tqmnite strani. E, vseki obicha da si pokazva hubavite.
Hmmm! To si e taka, mnogo priatni i tochni misli imash.
Kogat, obache, stava duma edva li ne za Duhoven vodach,
koyto si spodelia stepenta na vqzvisiavane, za da dade
posoka i na drugite - chovek se shokira da vidi edno pqlno
nerazbirane i pqrvobitna reakcia, kogato pri tova niama za
kakvo. Dori da pisheh niakakva seriozna teza v publichno
spisanie - s cel da ubedia v neya auditoriata, a ne - kakto e
vsqshtnost - prosto da razkaja edna smeshna sluchka ot
jivota si - pak izbuhvaneto mu e neadekvatno. A malko
predi tova e govoril za Istini, razlichni istini, tolerantnost na
mnenia - be prikazchicite za balami.
> Tova ti go
> pisha, zashtoto ti se obqrna kqm men.
:((( Be tva si e tqpiat pohvat na grupata - kazvam ti dqshte -
seshtay se snaho! Ama kato rechesh da ne razgovariash
poveche s niakogo, a ti se iska da go hapnesh za posleden
pqt .... :(((( Sorry!
> Zatova moje bi triabva i az da se
> izkaja za Batenbergskia proizhod na TJ. ..........zashtoto tia ne e edinstveniat sluchai.
Da, tezi neshta sa vseizvestni, a eto, kogato se sticne do
takqv kurioz - tova da e niakoy bivsh idol na BG - stana
neveroyatna kolizia v sqrcata na Pazachite na Hrama na
Demokraciata v SCB :)))))) Mnogo mi e priatno kolko
estestveno i s chuvstvo za realnost i humor si priela ti
razkaza mi. Kakto i vsichki nie na vremeto - razkazvahme si
go s mnogo smiah, zashtoto tochno takqv sluh
otgovariashe na cialata groteska na jivota ni! Zashto pqk
ne! Zashto da ne se uvenchae Bunishteto s Carska korona -
togava veche absurdqt shteshe da e izcialo zavqrshen! Dori
ako ni ubediaha, che ne e verno - shteshe da ni lishat ot
nay-goliamoto udovolstvie.
Radvam se, che pone ti si si zapazila trezvoto chuvstvo za
realnost. :)))))))))))) Inache avtorqt na tazi ideya shte si
ostane anonimen, kakto i avtorite na chudesnite vicove,
koito si razpraviahme niakoga.
A za dokazvane ili othvqrliane na hipotezata - edva li shte
se nameriat jelaeshti :))))))) Mislia, che ednakvo bi ya
oshtetilo kakto i polojitelen, taka i otricatelen otgovor. :)))))
Da ostavim trupovete da pochivat v mir - ima kqde da davat
otchet za delata si...
Rabotata e, che reakciata na Crazy ne beshe za carskiat
proizhod - MMinchev izgqrmia tam - ujasen, che idolqt,
pred koyto samo si pozvoliava da se preklania - moje da se
okaje oskvernen s praveshka kal i komunisticheska smrad.
Povecheto hora podskoknaha ot misqlta mi, che TJ moje i
da e napravil i neshto sviasno prez jivota si. Kakto znaem -
za svaleniat car - nishto dobro! Tochno esenciata za tova
se sqdqrjashe v posta na Crazy - kak az se mislia za
vqrhoven intelekt, no vsqshtnost originalnostta mi se
ravniava na tazi, da se izkenzam na obshtestveno miasto.
Stinkata sqshto reagira po tozi nachin, no poneje go
schitam za priatel - ne si pozvolih nikakvi izblici po negov
adres - makar che imam...imam kakvo da kaja. Vse oshte
sqm verna na priatelstvata, makar che... poniakoga...
Rabotata e tam, che koy znae zashto izdevatelstvata nad BG
narod prez onova vreme se priemat v nashata auditoria kato
neshto nay-normalno, a izdevatelstvoto nad Turskoto
naselenie - izvednaj gi pqlni s gniav i gi kara da se hvqrliat
v bitka za pravda. I to izkliuchitelno po-mladite v grupata.
Prichinata - spored men - e, che te sami ne znayat do kakva
stepen im e promit mozqkqt ot sled 10 noemvriyskata
presa - kogato se igraeshe golemiat teatqr - Borba za
Demokracia. Otdavna veche vsichki znaem, che tozi teatqr
beshe razigran ot sqshtite hora, koito nay se boyat ot
demokracia. No na - niakak razdeliat neshtata - presata
uspia da im vnushi, che stava niakakva ogromna promiana i
da shtampira v tiah sxemite na bqdeshtoto im povedenie. I
poneje v tozi period Turskiat vqpros beshe nujen za da se
ritne za posleden pqt padnaliat Vlastelin - te go razduha i
napraviha gorkoto tursko naselenie - za tiahno nay-goliamo
uchudvane - nay-izstradali geroi. I s umilenie chetiahme v
presata - a to i naistina beshe prekrasno - za mili sceni na
bqlgari, podpomagashti s hrana i topli zavivki, chay, kafe
demonstrirashtite v nay-golemite studove tursko-
useshtashti se BG grajdani. Az daje ne znam za kakvo sa
demonstrirali po noshtite i studovete na Sofia - dotolkova
mi e napravilo vpechatlenie dqlgoochakvanoto
dobrosqrdechie i priatelstvona horata v BG. E, jalko, ne
prodqlji mnogo dqlgo - kogato Angelqt na milosqrdieto
veche si izigra roliata - mediite, podtikvani ot dirigentite -
vednaga smeniha posokata, skaraha vseki s vseki i
prodqljiha da manipulirat mozqcite. Kakto vijdame i dosega
na SCB!!!!
Vsqshtnost iskam da kaja, che DESETKI godini
sqshtestvuvashe preimenuvane i na BG naselenieto! Koy ot
nas mojeshe da si krqsti svobodno deteto, kajete mi? Sled
rajdane idvashe ednaakusherka - obiknoveno part. otg. na
akusherkite - s edna malka knijka v rqka i se staraeshe da
ni vnushi, che mojem da si krqstim deteto SAMo s ime ot
tazi knijka. Na silnite ni protesti, che tova e samo edno
prouchvane za proizhodqt na imenata v BG, a ne Zakon, ili
dori ne postanovlenie - se otgovariashe prosto "Tova niama
nikakvo znachenie!" Do 8 mesechna vqzrast dqshteria mi
sedia bez ime! Pri tova imeto y beshe chisto bqlgarsko,
prosto go niamashe v knijkata! Mojeh da ya krqstia s nay-
idiotski imena - kato Krushka, traktoristka, ili podobni
divotii, koito figuriraha v knijkata, zashtoto chovekqt si e
pisal izsledvane, a ne imennik!!! - no ne i chudesnoto ime,
koeto deteto mi si nosi i do sega! Poluchi go, zashtoto
edin priatel imal squchenichka, koyato bila slujitelka v
RaySqveta - tochno kqdeto se registrirat imenata. I mina!
No zaslujilata akusherka ne dopusna narushenie! Nito pqk
Nikolay Haytov, kogoto poznavah i beshe sqshto niakakqv
sqvetnik v SGNS - ama goliam - ne uspia /Ili dori ne
opita???/ da pomogne!
Taka che nishto novo pod slqnceto i za Turskoto naselenie
- deto mi davaha primer za imena Omurtag i podobni - te sa
im bili nalojeni po sqshtia nachin, kakto i na nas - s
knijkata - a turskite roditeli gi podbiraha taka, che da
prilichat na istinskoto ime na deteto - Omar i podobni.
Narodqt li niama da prekara pravitelstvoto si! No niamashe
tam Dobrovolno pretopiavane, a i ne e bilo nujno!
Schitashe se, che turskoto naselenie veche e "ukroteno",
chak do momenta, kogato zapochna da se podstrekava
sqzdavaneto na edna absoliutno nenujna i nejelana dori ot
turcite avtonomia, samo i samo da se destabilizira i bez tva
shashnatata strana.
Lel, kak se otplesnah ot temata :((((((
Vsqshtnost se mqcha da obiasnia prevqzbudenata reakcia
na mnozinstvoto mladeji tuk, nepoznavashti vsqshtnost
taka izstradano cialoto ni blizko minalo.
Za TJ beshe vse edno koy shte se opita da go butne ot
stola - USA, Sqrbia, Turcia, vqtreshna opozicia - toy si
reagirashe vednaga i kakto e nujno za nay-pqlnocenna
zashtita. I v sluchaya s turskoto naselenie NAISTINA spasi
BG, ili pone mnogo neyni grajdani ot mqki i unushtojenie.
Sega tuk ima edna podrobnost - s kakva motivacia se
izvqrshva edno spasenie! Moje da e sqznatelno blagorodna,
moje da e i nay-sluchayna - kato nastqpish, bez dori i da
zabelejish, skorpiona, koyto e shtial da uhape sqseda. I
tova pravi reakciata na SCB Borec za Demokracia smeshna i
gorchiva! Che smesvat faktite s podbudite, zaradi Ideyata -
izhvqrliat i fakta s mrqsnata voda. Zatova imenno kazvam,
che predpochitam da vqrvia otdelno ot grupata - i shtom
vidia kak vsichki imat edno i sqshto mnenie - az pqk da ne
go spodeliam, a da go prerazglejdam! Zashtoto v mnenieto
na Mnozinstvoto vinagi leji vnushenata ot niakogo
shtampa.
No za kogo li gi razpraviam tia :(((( Ima mnogo oshte hliab
da iziadete - a povecheto ot vas veche sa v strani, kqdeto
obshtestvenoto mnenie e veche otdavna svrqh-dirijirano, a i
visokiat standart veche izmestva cennostite, zaglajda
rqbovete i kara dushata da ripva v protest ot nay-malkata
grapavinka, koyato moje da razdrusa leko tqrkaliashtoto se
kolelo po gladkata pqtechka :((((((( A tam men me niama.
Az sqm po grapavinite!
Inache, Lili, mnogo milo i hubavo mislish - sqvsem tochno
v celta, racionalno, nezamqgleno ot tqpi principi i nasadeni
ideologii. Dano se zapazish po-dqlgo taka svejarski :)))
I ne slushay mnogo mnogo drugite - misli si sama! Moje za
po-dqlgo da izbegnesh konfekciata na misli!
Iskreno ti go pojelavam!
Tuka ima edna bqlgarka, koiato e bila v Bqlgaria po bash
> komunistichesko vreme i se e poznavala s roditelite na TJ (chudia se kak gi e
> poznavala) i kato i kazah za sluchaia, tvqrdi, che tova e nevqzmojno (t.e. TJ
> ne moje da e sin na Ferdinand).
:))))))))) I tia e umna jena!
> Obache priatno bi bilo da si misli chovek,
> che tolkova godini vsqshtnost ni e upravliaval tsarskiat sin i mu e bilo
> mnogo milo za bqlgarskia narod, taka che razbiram zashto tazi ideia ti e
> prisqrtse.
Prisqrce mi e, zashtoto uvenchava Gavrata s choveshkite
sqshtestva taka, kakto malko drugi neshta go praviat. :))))))
No ne poveche ot stepenta na edin hubav, mnooogo hubav
vic! I jalko, che ne uspiah da razsmeya druziata tuk :(((
J. /S mnogo simpatia kqm Lili!/
Krasimir Yalamov
>
> Kakto pisah v sqshtiat post - de go chukah, de se pukna!
> No pri malko naprejenie vseki se izdqnva na spukanite si
> mesta - lepenkite ne izdqrjat, lakirovkata poddava i se lqsva
> goliat zadnik na istinata.
Da. MM pomesti literaturna istoria za hipotetichen cheshit
koiyato istoria po nyakakva sluchainost korelira udivitelno dobre
s izliyaniata na WB v s.c.b. Reakciata: hrachki i pushkane
trust...@my-dejanews.com
d...@bu.edu wrote:
> >
>
> Imashe edin chudesen film "Portokal s chasovnikov mehanisym". Davaha go v kino
> "Durjba" :)
>
Chuvala sqm zaglavieto, no niakak si sqm propusnala da go gledam, uvi.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
Sled takqv podroben posting niama kak da ne napisha pak neshto, makar che
malko sqjaliavah, che go pisah. Zashtoto mi se struvashe, che se namesvam v
neshta, za koito triabvashe da si mqlcha i da ne izkazvam mnenia. Pqrvo,
zashtoto ne sqm kompetentna po vqprosite i ne poznavam nikogo taka dobre, za
da gi pretsenia. I az karam na intuitsia, no tya dosta chesto ne me lqje. Ili
po-tochno hubavoto, koeto vijdam u niakogo, si e takova, samo poniakoaga
po-tqmnoto mi ubiagva. No niama samo loshi hora, vseki e smesitsa ot svetlo i
tqmno i niuansite im.
Iskah da ti kaja, che nezavicimo ot tova, koeto vijdash u Ivan sega, niakak
si mislia, che to shte se izmesti ot po-polojitelno vqzpriatie. (Malko mi e
neudobno da go obsqjdam v treto litse i toi da go chete, no takava e
sqdbata:((). Zashtoto useshtam, che toi ne se prevqznasia i pravi na Duhoven
Vojd, a razkriva neshta, koito sa mnogo vajni za nego pred chovek, koito toi
znae, che go razbira (e, pone doniakqde). Da sreshtnesh takqv chovek e
sravnitelno riadko, kakto za nego, taka i za men. I ti si ot tazi "krqvna
grupa", no prosto moje bi ne si imala dostqp do po-iztochnata filosofia i
uchenia. I zatova veroiatno si govorim toi i az predimno. Human beings sa
pqlni s protivorechia, taka che nishto ne prechi v edin moment da si
vqzvisen, a v drug da "psuvash". Ne che na men mi e priatno, niama neshto
po-dalech ot men, obache pqk ot druga strana sqm vijdala hora "duhovni",
koito ce praviat na boji kravichki, sqs sladki prikazki te omaivat i se
usmihvat edno izkusno, i...prazno, bez dusha i sqdqrjanie. Viarno, che tuk
usmivkite sa "tochkovi i prepinatelni", ta niama miasto za iziava v taia
nasoka.
Procheti mu poslednite niakolko postinga i shte usetish, che tova, koeto
pishe, e istinsko i ot dusha. Poniakoga e mnogo samotno da jiveesh s
prejiviavania ot podoben rod, koito te izgariat otvqtre i koito ne mojesh da
spodelish s mnogo hora, ili po-tochno ne vinagi "care-vash" da gi spodelish.
Ot druga strana, moje bi na ego-to v tebe mu se iska da bqdesh tsenen za
tova, koeto chuvstvuvash i koeto si, a se okazva, che si sam v pustinya.
Pustinya ot hora, ne e li stranno...
Zashto gi izprikazvah vsichki tezi neshta? Zashtoto e jalko za hubav chovek
kato teb da se razmine s chovek kato Ivan.
> Az, malko predi da se otteglia - hapia :))) Ne obicham
> loshite hora da se chuvstvat prekaleno konfortno okolo
> men. Kogato sbqrkam v precenkata si - sluchva se chesto -
> se izviniavam i daje mi e naistina mqchno. No sega mislia,
> che ne sbqrkah...
> > Po otnoshenie na Ivan sqm po-biased i mu
> > viarvam. Osven tova vseki chovek bez izkliuchenie ima tqmna i svetla strana.
> > Niakoi gi prikrivat po-umelo, drugi ne. Az ne mislia, che toi se starae da
si
> > prikriva tqmnite strani. E, vseki obicha da si pokazva hubavite.
>
> Hmmm! To si e taka, mnogo priatni i tochni misli imash.
> Kogat, obache, stava duma edva li ne za Duhoven vodach,
> koyto si spodelia stepenta na vqzvisiavane, za da dade
> posoka i na drugite - chovek se shokira da vidi edno pqlno
> nerazbirane i pqrvobitna reakcia, kogato pri tova niama za
> kakvo. Dori da pisheh niakakva seriozna teza v publichno
> spisanie - s cel da ubedia v neya auditoriata, a ne - kakto e
> vsqshtnost - prosto da razkaja edna smeshna sluchka ot
> jivota si - pak izbuhvaneto mu e neadekvatno. A malko
> predi tova e govoril za Istini, razlichni istini, tolerantnost na
> mnenia - be prikazchicite za balami.
Znaesh li kogo kqde utselvash, tam e rabotata, che horata chesto vqrviat
kato po minirani poleta, kogato obshtuvat sqs sebepodobni, i zatova neshta,
koito na edni se struvat trivialni i nesqshtestveni, moje da se okajat
strashno vajni za drugi.
Mnogo mi e priatno kolko
> estestveno i s chuvstvo za realnost i humor si priela ti
> razkaza mi.
E, blagodaria. Prosto znam, che mnogo chesto "appearances are deceiving",
otnasia se za vsichki hora, a pqk kakvo ostava za polititsi, tsare i t.n.
Makar che faktqt, che tsar Boris e bil obichan ot naroda, ne e sluchaen
sqshto, horata useshtat hubavoto.
> A za dokazvane ili othvqrliane na hipotezata - edva li shte
> se nameriat jelaeshti :))))))) Mislia, che ednakvo bi ya
> oshtetilo kakto i polojitelen, taka i otricatelen otgovor. :)))))
> Da ostavim trupovete da pochivat v mir - ima kqde da davat
> otchet za delata si...
> Koy ot
> nas mojeshe da si krqsti svobodno deteto, kajete mi? Sled
> rajdane idvashe ednaakusherka - obiknoveno part. otg. na
> akusherkite - s edna malka knijka v rqka i se staraeshe da
> ni vnushi, che mojem da si krqstim deteto SAMo s ime ot
> tazi knijka. Na silnite ni protesti, che tova e samo edno
> prouchvane za proizhodqt na imenata v BG, a ne Zakon, ili
> dori ne postanovlenie - se otgovariashe prosto "Tova niama
> nikakvo znachenie!" Do 8 mesechna vqzrast dqshteria mi
> sedia bez ime! Pri tova imeto y beshe chisto bqlgarsko,
> prosto go niamashe v knijkata! Mojeh da ya krqstia s nay-
> idiotski imena - kato Krushka, traktoristka, ili podobni
> divotii, koito figuriraha v knijkata, zashtoto chovekqt si e
> pisal izsledvane, a ne imennik!!!
Tova si go spomniam, i zashto sa go pravili? Koi vid imena sa bili izbiagvani
i zashto, ne mi e iasno.
> Sega tuk ima edna podrobnost - s kakva motivacia se
> izvqrshva edno spasenie! Moje da e sqznatelno blagorodna,
> moje da e i nay-sluchayna - kato nastqpish, bez dori i da
> zabelejish, skorpiona, koyto e shtial da uhape sqseda.
Motivatsiata e vinagi mnogo vajna, daje za men poniakoga po-vajna ot tova,
koeto se pravi:( I Zatova imenno kazvam,
> che predpochitam da vqrvia otdelno ot grupata - i shtom
> vidia kak vsichki imat edno i sqshto mnenie - az pqk da ne
> go spodeliam, a da go prerazglejdam! Zashtoto v mnenieto
> na Mnozinstvoto vinagi leji vnushenata ot niakogo
> shtampa.
A, za teb mnenieto na mnozinstvoto e kato predupreditelen signal za proverka.
Zashto, choveshkata priroda si ima ovchi belezi, nabliudavam go vqv vsichki
sredi - akademichni, ne-akademichni, "duhovni" i t.n. Ili pqk "papagalski
belezi". No pqk pomisli si, kakvo nauchava chovek bez da povtaria,
improvizira i poniakoga obogatiava mislite, podhoda, modela, pr. na drugi
predi nego. Tova si e niakak estestveno.
> No za kogo li gi razpraviam tia :(((( Ima mnogo oshte hliab
> da iziadete
Vsichki sme taka, v edno ili drugo otnoshenie... No az tsenia tvoeto mnenie i
jiznen opit i mi e interesno da chuia razsqjdenia.
- a povecheto ot vas veche sa v strani, kqdeto
> obshtestvenoto mnenie e veche otdavna svrqh-dirijirano, a i
> visokiat standart veche izmestva cennostite, zaglajda
> rqbovete i kara dushata da ripva v protest ot nay-malkata
> grapavinka, koyato moje da razdrusa leko tqrkaliashtoto se
> kolelo po gladkata pqtechka :(((((((
Mnogo viarno. No bqlgarite sa opredeleno po-nedirijirani ot amerikantsite.
Moje bi zashtoto vijdat neshtata malko po-otvqn... Emotsionalnoto obvqrzvane
s edna ideia mnogo moje da prechi. Ot druga strana na East Coast amerikantsi,
koito sqm sreshtala, imat po-open-minded perspective ot tezi v Central Areas
(takova mi e vpechatlenieto). Naprimer tuk sqm obkrqjena ot amerikantsi,
dosta silno predubedeni kqm men kato bqlgarka, (tova go znam sqs sigurnost).
Obache ot dvata pqti, koito hodih na East Coast, se sreshtnah s hora (biaha
profesori ot Harvard, Brandeis, Univ. of Pennsylvania - imah priatelka, koito
me zavede i sqshto biah po rabota), koito proiaviha iskreno uvajenie kqm men
i s koito provedoh interesni, priatni razgovori kato s ravni. Taka che ima
edna masa ot hora, koiato mnogo lesno se poddava na trenirane ot sredsvata za
informatsia, i druga, koiato ima po-shirok i iasen pogled, ne-papagalski.
> Az sqm po grapavinite!
> I ne slushay mnogo mnogo drugite - misli si sama! Moje za
> po-dqlgo da izbegnesh konfekciata na misli!
>
> Iskreno ti go pojelavam!
Mersi, ne znam dali moje da se izbegne, zashtoto mislite se predavat po
telepatia, kato ot radiostantsia na radiostantsia i chovek ne vinagi osqznava
kakqv e proizhodqt na mislite...
> J. /S mnogo simpatia kqm Lili!/
L.
woman...@my-dejanews.com
Priaten posting! Mnogo obicham hora, koito se zastqpvat
za drug.
Vij sega. Az doydoh na SCB tochno zaradi neveroyatnata
samota, koyato izpitvam cial jivot - nezavisimo che
poniakoga biah obgradena s bezbroy liubimi priateli,
prekrasni liubimi, semeystvo i kakvo li ne... Spomenah tova
oshte v postingqt, s koyto se predstavih.
Razbira se - ne utochnih tochno kakva samota, a
zapochnah da pisha sluchki iz lichnia si jivot. Obratno na
povecheto hora - az ne kria nishto ot lichnia si jivot, no
dqlboko kria imenno mislite si, dushata si, ako moga taka
da se izrazia - imenno tova, svqrzano sqs samotata.
Moga da razgovariam s decata si - veche dosta golemi - na
2 i 16 god - za vsichko, dori za religii, za filosofii, kolko
mnogo neshta znayat i te - ot kqde li??? S mqja si oshte
poveche. No NIKOGA za ONOVA.
Samo ne za TEZI neshta. Ne moga da gi opredelia s dumi.
Naricham gi samo Istinski Vajnite Neshta. Zarazkazvah az
tuk kakvo li ne - posreshtnaha me chudesno povecheto
hora. Dori "gadovete" na grupata se umqlchaha. I az
zapochnah edin mnogo dqlqg post "BITIE" - stignah do
Bitie 8 ili 9 - s koito niakak podgotviah auditoriata, za da
zagovoria za Istinskite Neshta. Niakak si posochvah pqtia,
po koyto stignah do Tiah. I kogato veche triabvashe da
zagovoria - vnezapno spriah - i nishto veche ne moja da me
nakara da prodqlja. Tochno kogato reshih, che may veche
sa dostatqchno podgotveni - izvednaj s ujas razbrah - ot
niakoi repliki, che vsqshtnost govoria na chujd ezik. Ne
"chujd" za tiah. Ne iskam da kaja, che niakakva goliama
propast ni deli. Ne, az vinagi mislia, che vsichki nosim tezi
neshta v sebe si. No MOYAT ezik e chujd - tova, koeto
pisheh ne kazvashe tova, koeto useshtah. Vse se
ponasiashe po povqrhnostta, po fakti i sluchki, a
sqshtnostta ostavashe nezasegnata. Skrita. Absoliutno ne
se poddavashe na obiasnenie. Ili Izkaz.
Samotata, koyato me gori, e tochno ot tozi tip,
nevqzmojnostta da se obshtuva ISTINSKI. Za Istinski
Vajnite Neshta. Dori da gi spomenavame i obsqjdame -
niakak si ne gi spodeliame. Daje mi se struva, che gi
obezlichavame.
Mnogo hora mi pisaha s razbirane, s udovolstvie, dori s
tochno sqshtata kato moyata Samota. No dori i pri nay-
goliamo jelanie za kontakt, dori da razgovariame za tezi
neshta - ne se poluchava :((((((( Edin dva posta - i izvednaj
razbirame, che niamame kakvo poveche da si kajem...
Taka sledia sega vashite razgovori za religiata. I neshto mi
studenee... Izbroyavat se avtori. Termini. Uchenia. A
glavnoto izbiaga.
S indiyskite uchenia sqm zapoznata oshte ot 60te godini
:)))) Tochno togava beshe bumqt im. Mnogo sa
zavladiavashti v nachaloto. Moje bi zashtoto izvednaj ti
promeniat napqlno poniatiata za religiite. Drazni v tiah
terminologiata, absoliutno chujda na cialata ni erudicia. No
s tova se svikva. Po-loshoto e, che te sa podchineni na
nekqf Vissh Egoizqm - spasenieto i izdiganeto na
sobstvenata dusha. Niakak si - vqrhu mnogo zdrava i
prekrasna osnova - izvednaj e vqzdignat Pametnik na
Egoizma.
Tova ne me privlicha. Ne me interesuva da si spasiavam i
izdigam sobstvenata dusha. Privlicha me da podpalvam
horata, da gi otvariam za neshta, koito ne sa se i seshtali,
da im razkrivam otvqdni svetove - otvd nashite vqzpriatia.
Zatova indiyskite uchenia niakak me ostaviat ravnodushna.
A kato vidia podredeni v grupi hora da praviat "uprajnenia
za izvisyavane" pod rqkovodstvoto na niakoy bogato
zaplaten uchitel - napravo mi se povdiga! Zamirisva mi na
Indulgencii i bqlvoch.
Niakak stignah do izvodqt - za sebe si samo - che
edinstveno literaturata otgovaria na moite iziskvania. Tam
ne se govori napravo. Vsichko e zakodirano. Chetesh edno,
a Dushata ti razbira sqvsem drugo, pravi si izvodi, skatava
gi, vsmukva gi v sebe si - i se promenia. Tochno obratnoto
na tova - da govorim tochni fakti, teorii, koito da ni
Obuchavat, bez da ni promeniat.
I zapochvam da razbiram drazneshtata mqgliavost na
religioznite knigi na drevnostta. Koy ne e se e vbesiaval
kato gi chete, che ne sa kazali vsichko napravo, a samo sa
zagatnali, zamqglili dori, govoriat za kakvbo li ne - koeto
posle da kara horata da davat kakvi li ne poveche ili po-
malko nelepi tqlkuvania.
I vinagi stigam do zakliuchenie, che tova e i nay-pravilniat
nachin. NIKOY ne obicha da mu kajat TOCHNO kak e.
Udovolstvieto e da stignesh do Neshtata SAM, da se vodish
po sledata, da otkriesh edno Kamqche na Henzel, niakoe na
Gretel, da krivnesh po greshna izvivka, koyato nay-
neochakvano da te nakara da ahnesh v pochuda...
I nikoga da ne stignesh do kraya... Kakvo po-hubavo!!!
Ne si govorite ZATOVA samo vie dvamata zashtoto nie ne vi
razbirame, a zashtoto poniakoga ne e nujno chovek da se
namesva i da pochne da recitira poznaniata si. Kato na izpit
za matura. Poniakoga e nujno i da poslusha chovek, da
pomisli - kqde sme sqglasni, kqde se razminavame.
> Da sreshtnesh takqv chovek e
> sravnitelno riadko, kakto za nego, taka i za men. I ti si ot tazi "krqvna
> grupa", no prosto moje bi ne si imala dostqp do po-iztochnata filosofia i
> uchenia. I zatova veroiatno si govorim toi i az predimno.
O, az sqm sreshtala mnogo takiva hora. Uvi, mnogo ot tiah
stanaha narkomani i se zatriha - takova beshe vremeto! Uvi,
izglejda tova, che se sreshtame ne ni osvobojdava ot
samotata. May samo ni natqjava. Pone men. Eto, edno
takova "nedorazumenie" i me otdrqpna na svetlinni godini.
Ne znam zashto taka ni zasiaga... "izmianata" na nay-blizkite.
Chovek zapochva da se boi izobshto "da si otdava sqrceto"
na niakogo! Dokato agresiata na "chujdite" samo ni
stimulira.
Moje bi zatova horata taka obichat sporovete. Malka
dushevna gimnastika - i napred! - kqm Jivota! :)))))
Da, may shte si ostana v plen na knigite, v plen na
vnedrenite v tiah tayni. Kakvo e Izkustvoto izobshto, ako ne
edna proyava na MEDIUMnost - idei, vnusheni ni, rqka,
koyato pishe pod nechia diktovka, risuva neshta, videni ot
chujdi ochi.
Kolko pqti sqm siadala pred platno s namerenie da
narisuvam neshto predvaritelno obmisleno, no s iznenada
sqm gledala kak pred men se razkriva neshto sqvsem
neochakvano, nepodozirano, nesqshtestvuvalo nikoga
predi.
Ili sqm "izobretiavala" niakakva stranna vesht, modno
izdelie, neshto taka lichno moe i nevidiano nikqde drugade
- a sled niakoy i drug mesec vmezapno vidia porazena
ABSOLIUTNO sqshtoto - veche poblikuvano v spisanie.
Hqh! Otvlicham se!
> Znaesh li kogo kqde utselvash, tam e rabotata, che horata chesto vqrviat
> kato po minirani poleta, kogato obshtuvat sqs sebepodobni, i zatova neshta,
> koito na edni se struvat trivialni i nesqshtestveni, moje da se okajat
> strashno vajni za drugi.
Mnogo verno! Bih iskala da sme po-predpazeni ot tezi
"mini".
> Tova si go spomniam, i zashto sa go pravili? Koi vid imena sa bili izbiagvani
> i zashto, ne mi e iasno.
Edinstveno za da napomniat, che oshte s rajdaneto
NIAMAME NIKAKVI PRAVA. A i za da ne izglejda mnogo
RASISTKA miarkata spriamo malcinstvata. Tuk e miastoto
da dopqlnia, che na EVREITE pozvoliavaha da sa si EVREI.
Ne im mahnaha vednaga narodnostta v pasportite. Dosta
po-kqsno vmesto narodnost na mayka mi y pisheshe edna
dqlga cherta. May na vsichki beshe taka?
> > Sega tuk ima edna podrobnost - s kakva motivacia se
> > izvqrshva edno spasenie! Moje da e sqznatelno blagorodna,
> > moje da e i nay-sluchayna - kato nastqpish, bez dori i da
> > zabelejish, skorpiona, koyto e shtial da uhape sqseda.
> Motivatsiata e vinagi mnogo vajna, daje za men poniakoga po-vajna ot tova,
> koeto se pravi:( I Zatova imenno kazvam,
:))))))))))) I tva e chudesno popadenie!
> A, za teb mnenieto na mnozinstvoto e kato predupreditelen signal za proverka.
Bih kazala, che sqm "vqlk edinak", no ne e taka. Pqrvo, che
vsiako ubiystvo me otvrashtava, kakto i nagonqt kqm nego.
I vtoro - imenno tqlpata mi e strashno nujna, za da ima ot
kakvo da se distanciram.
Nagla li sqm??? :))))))))
> Mersi, ne znam dali moje da se izbegne, zashtoto mislite se predavat po
> telepatia, kato ot radiostantsia na radiostantsia i chovek ne vinagi osqznava
> kakqv e proizhodqt na mislite...
:))))))))) Ima neshto takova! Deystviata ni, v takqv sluchay,
ot kakvo se rqkovodiat?
> J. /S mnogo simpatia kqm Lili!/ :))))))))
Crazy
>> >It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
>> >hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
>> >ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution
>> >from the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of
humankind.
>>
>> Not if you're Jesus Christ!
>Oh, you mean that recognition and understanding don't matter if you were J.
>Christ?
No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
understanding and recognition.
>And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't know what
>you are talking about doesn't matter either?
Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
>Don't know. It sure seems to me
>that even when you talk out of love for Him/Her and share your Love and
>Joy, it will be nice to have a few ones who can embrace the Truth the same
way
>as you do. And what is more, people would tend to disbelieve a real Son of
>God, for one thing the world is full of them candidates, for another most
people
>don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
> I think that people
>> >ascribe many things to love that don't really belong there,
>
>> Like what?
>
>Like ownership, attachment(also a very misused and misunderstood term:()
>and others that I won't mention now.
Yes, I see what you're talking about and I agree.
>> Have you had the experience when it just "hits" you
>> and you need time to think about it and realize what that was?
>>
>> Yes. As a matter of fact, I've been "hit" so hard, that it shattered
>>my imaterial body to pieces. It wraped my aura to such an extend that any
>>aural bodyshop I went to refused to patch me up. Ever since that moment,
the
>> harmonics at which my Personal Atman broadcasts have been altered and
>>even I have sometimes problems understanding Her, much less anyone else.
Or, to
>>say it in a more understanding manner, the front drive of my all-terain
>>Cosmic Vehicle is out of alignment.
>
>Well, aren't you lucky!:))
Yes, I've been blessed.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >> >It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
> >> >hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
> >> >ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution
> >> >from the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of
> humankind.
> >>
> >> Not if you're Jesus Christ!
>
> >Oh, you mean that recognition and understanding don't matter if you were J.
> >Christ?
>
> No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
> You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
> understanding and recognition.
What do you understand by "The Son of God on Earth"? May be we mean different
things. Do you think He was the only one? And do you think He really got true
understanding and recognition? What about his closest disciples, for example?
And how many versions are there of The Bible today, how many times has The
Bible been revised (in England alone and then in the different churches) and
even The Bible itself is a compilation of different versions of supposedly
the same teaching. Do we know how far (or how close) the Bible as it is today
(let's assume it's one) is to the original teaching. Let me not continue here
because someone may accuse me of blasphemy:( This is kind of a trecharous
path to walk on and I will end here.
> >And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't know what
> >you are talking about doesn't matter either?
>
> Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
> On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
> say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
Such a Spiritual teacher comes for everyone but He knows who will respond and
who will pass by without ever noticing anything. And the criteria and reasons
are known to Him only, it's a kind of mystery. At the same time He knows that
noone fully realizes everything He says and He patiently
continues,(ultimately everybody has a free choice to do and understand or
accept anything they want), but He sees beyond certain appearances, he sees
the Soul in each one, and that's what He touches...
most
> people
> >don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
>
> Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
My understanding is that one can't recognize a Master (let's hope we agree on
this term) and fully comprehend everything He/She is saying unless one is in
that awareness. But intuition plays a role definitely. So it's not hopeless:)
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
L.
trust...@my-dejanews.com
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Vij sega. Az doydoh na SCB tochno zaradi neveroyatnata
> samota, koyato izpitvam cial jivot - nezavisimo che
> poniakoga biah obgradena s bezbroy liubimi priateli,
> prekrasni liubimi, semeystvo i kakvo li ne... Spomenah tova
> oshte v postingqt, s koyto se predstavih.
Da, a niakoi kazvat, che tova e blagoslovena samota, tazi,
koiato nikoi chovek ne moje da zapqlni... i togava kogato
izglejda, che imash vsichko, i vse pak Neshto lipsva:)
> No NIKOGA za ONOVA.
> Samo ne za TEZI neshta. Ne moga da gi opredelia s dumi.
> Naricham gi samo Istinski Vajnite Neshta. Vse se
> ponasiashe po povqrhnostta, po fakti i sluchki, a
> sqshtnostta ostavashe nezasegnata. Skrita. Absoliutno ne
> se poddavashe na obiasnenie. Ili Izkaz.
Da, tova sa otkrili mnogo "mqchenitsi".
> Samotata, koyato me gori, e tochno ot tozi tip,
> nevqzmojnostta da se obshtuva ISTINSKI. Za Istinski
> Vajnite Neshta. Dori da gi spomenavame i obsqjdame -
> niakak si ne gi spodeliame. Daje mi se struva, che gi
> obezlichavame.
Ami kakqv protsent ot vremeto na obshtuvane nie daje
obshtuvame s istinskata si sqshnost, i znaem li koia
e tia?
> Mnogo hora mi pisaha s razbirane, s udovolstvie, dori s
> tochno sqshtata kato moyata Samota. No dori i pri nay-
> goliamo jelanie za kontakt, dori da razgovariame za tezi
> neshta - ne se poluchava :((((((( Edin dva posta - i izvednaj
> razbirame, che niamame kakvo poveche da si kajem...
Jiveeiki v tozi sviat triabva tqrpenie, vsichko stava
bavno, na chasti, dori i kakto se tvori kartina, imash
ia kato obraz v sebe si,no dokato stignesh ot obraza do
iziavata, mine vreme, pqk i kartinata se poizmeni, nali
i ti taka kazvashe.
> Taka sledia sega vashite razgovori za religiata. I neshto mi
> studenee... Izbroyavat se avtori. Termini. Uchenia. A
> glavnoto izbiaga.
Ami dumite imat tova svoistvo, pqk kato pribavish i malko
"intelektualniat stil", osven tova vseki e predpazliv, ne
izkazva vsichko dokrai.
> S indiyskite uchenia sqm zapoznata oshte ot 60te godini
> :)))) Tochno togava beshe bumqt im. Mnogo sa
> zavladiavashti v nachaloto. Moje bi zashtoto izvednaj ti
> promeniat napqlno poniatiata za religiite. Drazni v tiah
> terminologiata, absoliutno chujda na cialata ni erudicia. No
> s tova se svikva. Po-loshoto e, che te sa podchineni na
> nekqf Vissh Egoizqm - spasenieto i izdiganeto na
> sobstvenata dusha. Niakak si - vqrhu mnogo zdrava i
> prekrasna osnova - izvednaj e vqzdignat Pametnik na
> Egoizma.
Mnogo chestni dushi sa popadnali v tazi klopka.
Opitvaiki se da gi razberesh, vqrvish po edna tqnka
"vrqv", ili kakto niakoi sa kazali, kato po "razor's
edge". Ia malko se naklonish naliavo i si v egoizma,
ia malko nadiasno i toku vij si stanal bezglasna bukva,
koiato vsichki tqpchat i i se prismivat (samo obrazno
kazano). Nali si spomniash primera za onzi priatel,
koito kazvashe:"Who else is there, it's only Me, and the
rest don't matter". Ta toi se sheguvashe s ideiata, che
vsichko e Edno, i vsichko si ti. No tova e edna ot nai-
trudnite kontseptsii na indiiskite uchenia i bez tova.
> Tova ne me privlicha. Ne me interesuva da si spasiavam i
> izdigam sobstvenata dusha.
A ti mislish li, che mojesh da pomognesh na niakogo ako
pqrvo ne pomognesh na sebe si? Naprimer, kak shte spasish
ot udaviane niakogo, i pri nai-dobro jelanie, ako ne
mojesh da pluvash?
Privlicha me da podpalvam
> horata, da gi otvariam za neshta, koito ne sa se i seshtali,
> da im razkrivam otvqdni svetove - otvd nashite vqzpriatia.
> Zatova indiyskite uchenia niakak me ostaviat ravnodushna.
Kqde e vsqshnost protivorechieto v tova otnoshenie, az ne
go vijdam. Kogato ti znaesh za tezi svetove, shte mojesh
da gi razkriesh, da, no ako ne znaesh? I tova, koeto shte
dadesh shte e tolkova, kolkoto ti znaesh i ne na iota
poveche.
> A kato vidia podredeni v grupi hora da praviat "uprajnenia
> za izvisyavane" pod rqkovodstvoto na niakoy bogato
> zaplaten uchitel - napravo mi se povdiga! Zamirisva mi na
> Indulgencii i bqlvoch.
Da, tazi kombinatsia hich ne e privlekatelna i za men.
> Niakak stignah do izvodqt - za sebe si samo - che
> edinstveno literaturata otgovaria na moite iziskvania. Tam
> ne se govori napravo. Vsichko e zakodirano. Chetesh edno,
> a Dushata ti razbira sqvsem drugo, pravi si izvodi, skatava
> gi, vsmukva gi v sebe si - i se promenia. Tochno obratnoto
> na tova - da govorim tochni fakti, teorii, koito da ni
> Obuchavat, bez da ni promeniat.
Tova e chudesno, i az taka useshtam neshtata. A govoreneto
za faktite i teoriite e neshto kato pqtevoditel i narqchnik,
no ne e tova, koeto te promenia, sqvsem si prava.
> I zapochvam da razbiram drazneshtata mqgliavost na
> religioznite knigi na drevnostta. Koy ne e se e vbesiaval
> kato gi chete, che ne sa kazali vsichko napravo, a samo sa
> zagatnali, zamqglili dori, govoriat za kakvbo li ne - koeto
> posle da kara horata da davat kakvi li ne poveche ili po-
> malko nelepi tqlkuvania.
Trudna materia za obiasniavane i razbirane, kakvo da se
pravi, zatova na men mi e priatno da si govoria s niakogo,
koito hem spodelia, hem slusha.
> I vinagi stigam do zakliuchenie, che tova e i nay-pravilniat
> nachin. NIKOY ne obicha da mu kajat TOCHNO kak e.
> Udovolstvieto e da stignesh do Neshtata SAM, da se vodish
> po sledata, da otkriesh edno Kamqche na Henzel, niakoe na
> Gretel, da krivnesh po greshna izvivka, koyato nay-
> neochakvano da te nakara da ahnesh v pochuda...
To niama i drug nachin, kakvoto i da ti razpraviat,
i pqtya,i trqnite, i tsvetiata, i padaniata, i stavaniata,
sa si tvoi
> I nikoga da ne stignesh do kraya... Kakvo po-hubavo!!!
Za koi krai govorish?:)
> O, az sqm sreshtala mnogo takiva hora. Uvi, mnogo ot tiah
> stanaha narkomani i se zatriha - takova beshe vremeto! Uvi,
> izglejda tova, che se sreshtame ne ni osvobojdava ot
> samotata. May samo ni natqjava. Pone men. Eto, edno
> takova "nedorazumenie" i me otdrqpna na svetlinni godini.
> Ne znam zashto taka ni zasiaga... "izmianata" na nay-blizkite.
> Chovek zapochva da se boi izobshto "da si otdava sqrceto"
> na niakogo! Dokato agresiata na "chujdite" samo ni
> stimulira.
Ami chovek moje bi ne biba da ochakva, che niakoi drug chovek moje da go
osvobodi ot samotata, zashtoto osvobojdeniato ne idva otvqn...
>
> Kolko pqti sqm siadala pred platno s namerenie da
> narisuvam neshto predvaritelno obmisleno, no s iznenada
> sqm gledala kak pred men se razkriva neshto sqvsem
> neochakvano, nepodozirano, nesqshtestvuvalo nikoga
> predi.
:)
> Ili sqm "izobretiavala" niakakva stranna vesht, modno
> izdelie, neshto taka lichno moe i nevidiano nikqde drugade
> - a sled niakoy i drug mesec vmezapno vidia porazena
> ABSOLIUTNO sqshtoto - veche poblikuvano v spisanie.
Ami ideite, mislite, si se reiat v prostranstvoto i se
vqzpriemat ot razlichni "radiostantsii"
>
>.
>
> Deystviata ni, v takqv sluchay,
> ot kakvo se rqkovodiat?
Moje bi ot mislite, chuvstvata i tem podobni.
> > J. /S mnogo simpatia kqm Lili!/ :))))))))
Podobno
Crazy
>> No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
>> You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
>> understanding and recognition.
>
>What do you understand by "The Son of God on Earth"? May be we mean
>different things.
Well, Jesus Christ was a Son of God on Earth, wasn't he?
>Do you think He was the only one?
No.
>And do you think He really got true understanding and recognition?
He certainly got recognition. After all, millions of people now pray in
His name. As far as understanding, some got some understanding, but "true
understanding"... I don't know about that.
>What about his closest disciples, for example?
I don't think they got true understanding. ...But then again, I never
met The Dude, they did. So how can we say who got what understanding?
>And how many versions are there of The Bible today, how many times has The
>Bible been revised (in England alone and then in the different churches)
>and even The Bible itself is a compilation of different versions of
supposedly
>the same teaching. Do we know how far (or how close) the Bible as it is
>today (let's assume it's one) is to the original teaching.
It depends on what you mean by "original teaching". What Christ was
preaching was a rather old teaching. He wasn't much different then any other
"holy man", roaming the countryside, talking about God. But the teaching
itself changed drastically as it was taught by Christ (judging by all
records) and even more drastically after His death. So, whatever you may
mean by "original", it changed. :-))
>Let me not continue here
>because someone may accuse me of
sphemy:(
Not to worry. I will defend you! :-))
Go ahead and continue.
>This is kind of a trecharous path to walk on and I will end here.
What is so treacharous about the path? It is a well known, well traveled path.
>> >And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't kn
ow what
>> >you are talking about doesn't matter either?
>>
>> Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
>> On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
>> say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
>
>
>Such a Spiritual teacher comes for everyone but He knows who will respond
>and who will pass by without ever noticing anything. And the criteria and
>reasons are known to Him only, it's a kind of mystery. At the same time He
knows
>that noone fully realizes everything He says and He patiently
>continues,(ultimately everybody has a free choice to do and understand or
>accept anything they want), but He sees beyond certain appearances, he sees
>the Soul in each one, and that's what He touches...
That's all fine ...with the exception of you using the "He" thingy all
the time. You may include an occasional "She" so that you can help me fight
for the liberation of women and so forth. It doesn't always have to be a
male, you know.
...Although I must say that, imo, you have a highly stylized, idealized
notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like. My take on the issue is a
little bit different.
> most
>> people
>> >don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
>>
>> Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
>
>My understanding is that one can't recognize a Master (let's hope we agree
>on this term)
I never really liked the term much. You probably can guess the reasons.
I prefer just a "teacher".
...What would be the feminine for a Master? A Mistress?? :-))))
Love,
-= Ivan =-
woman...@my-dejanews.com
Tozi pqt napravo me prosna! Bravo! Neveroyatno mqdro
mislene! I taka otrano! Naistina sqm mnogo vpechatlena!
Sqjaliavam che se razminavame taka vqv vremeto i
prostranstvoto :(((((
J. /Nay-iskreno onemiala v pochuda da prochete i malko
Mqdrost tuk!/
In article <7c99fb$lve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> > >> >It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
> > >> >hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
> > >> >ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution
> > >> >from the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of
> > humankind.
> > >>
> > >> Not if you're Jesus Christ!
> >
> > >Oh, you mean that recognition and understanding don't matter if you were J.
> > >Christ?
> >
> > No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
> > You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
> > understanding and recognition.
>
> What do you understand by "The Son of God on Earth"? May be we mean different
> things. Do you think He was the only one? And do you think He really got true
> understanding and recognition? What about his closest disciples, for example?
> And how many versions are there of The Bible today, how many times has The
> Bible been revised (in England alone and then in the different churches) and
> even The Bible itself is a compilation of different versions of supposedly
> the same teaching. Do we know how far (or how close) the Bible as it is today
> (let's assume it's one) is to the original teaching. Let me not continue here
> because someone may accuse me of blasphemy:( This is kind of a trecharous
> path to walk on and I will end here.
>
> > >And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't know what
> > >you are talking about doesn't matter either?
> >
> > Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
> > On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
> > say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
>
> Such a Spiritual teacher comes for everyone but He knows who will respond and
> who will pass by without ever noticing anything. And the criteria and reasons
> are known to Him only, it's a kind of mystery. At the same time He knows that
> noone fully realizes everything He says and He patiently
> continues,(ultimately everybody has a free choice to do and understand or
> accept anything they want), but He sees beyond certain appearances, he sees
> the Soul in each one, and that's what He touches...
>
> most
> > people
> > >don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
> >
> > Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
>
> My understanding is that one can't recognize a Master (let's hope we agree on
> this term) and fully comprehend everything He/She is saying unless one is in
> that awareness. But intuition plays a role definitely. So it's not hopeless:)
>
> > Love,
> > -= Ivan =-
>
> L.
>
Dimitar Gueorguiev
Ostavi go Ivan - toi e tarikat; vinagi shte nameri kakvo da ti otgovori
:)
Studentka li si, ako ne e taina ?
Dimitar
-------------------------------
PhD student
Aerospace&Mechanical Engineering Dept.
College of Engineering
Boston University
-------------------------------
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >> No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
> >> You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
> >> understanding and recognition.
> >
> >What do you understand by "The Son of God on Earth"? May be we mean
> >different things.
>
> Well, Jesus Christ was a Son of God on Earth, wasn't he?
I believe so, from what other trustworthy sources have said:) He did have
followers who were ready to die for his ideas, especially after his death.
Christianity became more widespread after his death. I mostly meant while he
was alive. Because it is then that matters. Afterwards people can glorify
you, crucify you, put words in your mouth you never said or modify them to
their own liking. Anything. It becomes more like a legend, or like playing
the game "telephone", by the time it reaches the last person a word can take
on a whole new meaning or be a different word:) And while he was alive he did
experience persecution, misunderstanding, even physical abuse and eventually
the crucifiction.
> >Do you think He was the only one?
>
> No.
Same here.
> >And do you think He really got true understanding and recognition?
>
> He certainly got recognition. After all, millions of people now pray in
> His name. As far as understanding, some got some understanding, but "true
> understanding"... I don't know about that.
Yes, that's difficult to say especially when one is struggling with one's own
understanding. But I know that early Christianity was quite different from its
contemporary form, even with the various churches.
> >And how many versions are there of The Bible today, how many times has The
> >Bible been revised (in England alone and then in the different churches)
> >and even The Bible itself is a compilation of different versions of
> supposedly
> >the same teaching. Do we know how far (or how close) the Bible as it is
> >today (let's assume it's one) is to the original teaching.
>
> It depends on what you mean by "original teaching". What Christ was
> preaching was a rather old teaching. He wasn't much different then any other
> "holy man", roaming the countryside, talking about God. But the teaching
> itself changed drastically as it was taught by Christ (judging by all
> records) and even more drastically after His death. So, whatever you may
> mean by "original", it changed. :-))
Well that's my point too.
> >Let me not continue here
> >because someone may accuse me of
> sphemy:(
>
> Not to worry. I will defend you! :-))
> Go ahead and continue.
Oh, I wish I had more time to talk about all these things, but hopefully in a
few weeks or months I will. Right now the walls are closing in on me ;( in
terms of free time.
> >This is kind of a trecharous path to walk on and I will end here.
>
> What is so treacharous about the path? It is a well known, well traveled
path.
I didn't express myself well, I meant it was a dangerous ground to walk on,
but the words didn't come to me:(
> >> >And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't kn
> ow what
> >> >you are talking about doesn't matter either?
> >>
> >> Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
> >> On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
> >> say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
> >
> >
> >Such a Spiritual teacher comes for everyone but He knows who will respond
> >and who will pass by without ever noticing anything. And the criteria and
> >reasons are known to Him only, it's a kind of mystery. At the same time He
> knows
> >that noone fully realizes everything He says and He patiently
> >continues,(ultimately everybody has a free choice to do and understand or
> >accept anything they want), but He sees beyond certain appearances, he sees
> >the Soul in each one, and that's what He touches...
>
> That's all fine ...with the exception of you using the "He" thingy all
> the time. You may include an occasional "She" so that you can help me fight
> for the liberation of women and so forth. It doesn't always have to be a
> male, you know.
> ...Although I must say that, imo, you have a highly stylized, idealized
> notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like. My take on the issue is a
> little bit different.
Well, that's my own perception of a Spiritual Teacher, and it definitely
doesn't exclude women (I know there are women-......) but for me personally
became a fixed idea in my mind that a Teacher that would appeal to me is a
man, may be it's easier for me to listen to a man than a woman in that
respect, for some reason.
And what's your notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like? (Or is
like?)
> > most
> >> people
> >> >don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
> >>
> >> Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
Da, obache zavisi koi gi razpoznava.
> >My understanding is that one can't recognize a Master (let's hope we agree
> >on this term)
>
> I never really liked the term much. You probably can guess the reasons.
> I prefer just a "teacher".
> ...What would be the feminine for a Master? A Mistress?? :-))))
Still a Master. The English language doesn't have masculine/feminine for a lot
of words and I don't have a problem. The same as a teacher, what would be the
feminine for a Teacher, a Temptress, or smth. like that?:)
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
L.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
trust...@my-dejanews.com
Kaji mi, koe tochno te vpechatli kato mqdrost.
L.
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Lili :)))))))
>
> Tozi pqt napravo me prosna! Bravo! Neveroyatno mqdro
> mislene! I taka otrano! Naistina sqm mnogo vpechatlena!
>
> Sqjaliavam che se razminavame taka vqv vremeto i
> prostranstvoto :(((((
>
> J. /Nay-iskreno onemiala v pochuda da prochete i malko
> Mqdrost tuk!/
>
> In article <7c99fb$lve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> > > >> >It seems to me that being "The Son of God on Earth" is an awfully
> > > >> >hard and lonely task... Usually no understanding, no recognition, no
> > > >> >ego-gratifying experiences of any kind and very possible persecution
> > > >> >from the (how should I say) not as poor in spirit representatives of
> > > humankind.
> > > >>
> > > >> Not if you're Jesus Christ!
> > >
> > > >Oh, you mean that recognition and understanding don't matter if you were
J.
> > > >Christ?
> > >
> > > No. I meant that Jesus Christ got plenty of recognition.
> > > You seemed to be saying that "The Son of God on Earth" didn't get
> > > understanding and recognition.
> >
> > What do you understand by "The Son of God on Earth"? May be we mean
different
> > things. Do you think He was the only one? And do you think He really got
true
> > understanding and recognition? What about his closest disciples, for
example?
> > And how many versions are there of The Bible today, how many times has The
> > Bible been revised (in England alone and then in the different churches) and
> > even The Bible itself is a compilation of different versions of supposedly
> > the same teaching. Do we know how far (or how close) the Bible as it is
today
> > (let's assume it's one) is to the original teaching. Let me not continue
here
> > because someone may accuse me of blasphemy:( This is kind of a trecharous
> > path to walk on and I will end here.
> >
> > > >And the fact that you are sharing and a lot of them don't know what
> > > >you are talking about doesn't matter either?
> > >
> > > Kind of it doesn't. ...Except that it sounds rather cold-blooded.
> > > On the other hand, you never know if it matters or not. It's hard to
> > > say. I guess, you do what you have to do and hope for the best.
> >
> > Such a Spiritual teacher comes for everyone but He knows who will respond
and
> > who will pass by without ever noticing anything. And the criteria and
reasons
> > are known to Him only, it's a kind of mystery. At the same time He knows
that
> > noone fully realizes everything He says and He patiently
> > continues,(ultimately everybody has a free choice to do and understand or
> > accept anything they want), but He sees beyond certain appearances, he sees
> > the Soul in each one, and that's what He touches...
> >
> > most
> > > people
> > > >don't have the "tool" to recognize a true one when they see Him/Her.
> > >
> > > Chadata bozhi se poznavat po chalmite! :-))
> >
> > My understanding is that one can't recognize a Master (let's hope we agree
on
> > this term) and fully comprehend everything He/She is saying unless one is in
> > that awareness. But intuition plays a role definitely. So it's not
hopeless:)
> >
> > > Love,
> > > -= Ivan =-
> >
> > L.
> >
woman...@my-dejanews.com
trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
J.,
> Kaji mi, koe tochno te vpechatli kato mqdrost.
L.
Lili, upotrebih dumata MUDROST kato nay-tochna, zashtoto
da chuesh zreli misli ot edin mnooogo mlad chovek -
spored men - se dqlji na Mqdrost, a ne samo na obuchenie,
predpolojenie, podrajanie, intelekt i podobni.
Ne shta da ti povtariam dumite - edno po edno vsiako
izrechenie za religiite, za Jesusu Christ, za "sin Boji" i t.n. -
sa taka izchisteni ot vsiakakqv primes na sliapo religiozno
chuvstvo, na sliap fanatizqm - chesto sreshtan na SCB, uvi!
Poradi idiotska cherta na haraktera si - az ne obicham da
"izuchavam" neshtata, a da mi uzriavat sami v mozqka. I s
mnogo "boyazqn" si sqzdadoh niakoi predstavi, kato sintez
na vsichko, koeto sqm prejiviala. I mislia, che NIKOGA ne
bih gi izrazila taka priako - po-skoro s razkazi, s nameci, s
nasoki... :((((((((
Vqztorgna me iznenadata da gi kajesh taka prostichko i
yasno - taka me izradva predi i pqrvata Dyhovna lekcia na
Crazy. Za sqjalenie vie prodqljavete da si lafite na ezik, na
koyto trudno se izraziavam i ne moga da vmqkvam repliki...
No pqk i komu e nujno...
Da rechem, che kontrastqt na mladostta i dumite ti me e
nakaral da upotrebia dumata Mqdrost! Vqobshte si padam
po izkazvania, koito tlasvat Choveka da misli universalno-
religiozno, a ne sektantski.
Dali se iziasnih dostatqchno??? I se nadiavam, che ne si
vzela dumite mi za niakakva podigravka??? Ni nay-malko!
J.
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Lili :)))))))
>
> Tozi pqt napravo me prosna! Bravo! Neveroyatno mqdro
> mislene! I taka otrano! Naistina sqm mnogo vpechatlena!
>
> Sqjaliavam che se razminavame taka vqv vremeto i
> prostranstvoto :(((((
>
> J. /Nay-iskreno onemiala v pochuda da prochete i malko
> Mqdrost tuk!/
>
> In article <7c99fb$lve$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
trust...@my-dejanews.com
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7ck8ru$sgd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
Nikak ne sqm mislila, che se podigravash, samo mi beshe interesno da uznaia
kakvo te e vpechatlilo ot dumite mi. Az useshtam niakakva blizost (da rechem
"duhovna' ili ideina, a moje bi kato vqzpriatie), s teb, i dori ne moga da
obiasnia tochno kakva e, no dumite mnogo chesto sa prechka mejdu horata...
A ti ne se chuvstvuvai dlqjna da se vkliuchvash v kakvoto i da e, nai-hubava
e spontannostta. Az dqlgo vreme si taiah suma ti neshta v sebe si, no sega
izvednqj imam silna nujda da gi spodeliam s hora, koito imat podobni
useshtania. I vinagi kogato imam vreme, shte pisha po neshto, dokato ima s
kogo da si govoria. Vsqshtnost imam nujda tochno ot bqlgari, s koito da si
govorya po "duhovni" vqprosi, i ne znam zashto tova e taka, moje bi zashtoto
mi e omrqznalo ot hora, koito misliat s klisheta, a mnogo ot amerikantsite s
podobni interesi imat tendentsiata sliapo da se hvqrliat v edna posoka i kato
razvalen gramofon da povtariat edno i sqshto, koeto otdavna e zagubilo
jivinkata si.
Blagodarya ti za toplite dumi!
L.
> >
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Crazy
>> ...Although I must say that, imo, you have a highly stylized,
>>idealized notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like. My take on the
issue is
>>a little bit different.
>
>Well, that's my own perception of a Spiritual Teacher, and it definitely
>doesn't exclude women (I know there are women-......) but for me personally
>became a fixed idea in my mind that a Teacher that would appeal to me is a
>man, may be it's easier for me to listen to a man than a woman in that
>respect, for some reason.
I like you so much, I'm having a hard time keeping myself from flirting.
>And what's your notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like? (Or is
>like?)
The more revealing answer would be to the question what is a spiritual
teacher NOT like, at least imo. First, he's not from India or an Asian
country. Second, he is not old and with a long, white beard. Third, he
doesn't talk about abstinence, chastity, high morals and kundalini. Forth,
he doesn't have a bunch of long-haired, wide-eyed groupies sitting in a
circle around him, absorbing every word of the "swami". ...Well, you get the
idea.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
Crazy
(talking about Jesus)
>>> >Do you think He was the only one?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Same here.
>>
>
>
Lots of Baptists would disagree with you. :-))
They'll quote something about Him being "the only begotten Son of God".
Speaking of Begotten (and linking a previous thread) have they shown in
Bulgaria the flick Begotten? Very alternative ... I mean, very!
Love,
-= Ivan =-
sp...@erols.com
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> Crazy wrote in message <7c427n$8j0$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
> >GS wrote in message <36E44992...@erols.com>...
> >>> > And Stanley Kubrick died last night :(
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for my ignorance again, but who is he?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again
> >>
> >>Famous original rock and roll star.
oops, i thought he is a rock person from the 50s, maybe some jazzy kind of rock
music? Maybe this is another Stanley . I never saw Clockwork Orange or Full
Metal Jacket.
>
> >
> >
> > HUh?? No.
> > Stanley Kubrick is a very cool director ...of a cult status. The
> >mainstream knows him for a Full Metal Jacket, while everyone else knows him
> >for Clockwork Orange.
> > Love,
> > -= Ivan =-
> >
>
> Actually, both. He tried some music but never became as good a musician as a
> film director.
> Clockwork Orange is a phenomenon in film art.
> I have always wondered how come the communists let this movie be shown in
> Bulgaria.
> Then, speaking of movies, I still can't explain they showed "Brazil" to us
> in the army in 1986 (in Sliven). Given the circumstences, the impact of this
> move on my understanding of society was tremendous.
>
> SN
Life is very "Brazil" (insane and Kafkaesque) but so is the built environment.
I felt this particularly in the nebulous years between postmodernism and
deconstructivism. Both were ugly, exaggerations on a derivative theme, and
desperate to be funded in order that someone might be accorded star "signature
designer" status.
sp...@erols.com
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> >> Well, Jesus Christ was a Son of God on Earth, wasn't he?
> >
>
> Yes, he was and he was also the Son of Man.
Perfect God and perfect man as his Mom was fully human, there having been a
blessed virgin birth but no immaculate conception. :)
> And while he was alive he
> did
> >experience persecution, misunderstanding, even physical abuse and
> eventually
> >the crucifiction.
> >
> >> >Do you think He was the only one?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Same here.
> >
>
> He himself acknowledged that he was not the only one.
only First and Last, Alpha and Omega, and that no one comes to the Father except
through Him.
>
>
> >> >And do you think He really got true understanding and recognition?
> >>
> >> He certainly got recognition. After all, millions of people now pray
> in
> >> His name. As far as understanding, some got some understanding, but "true
> >> understanding"... I don't know about that.
> >
> >Yes, that's difficult to say especially when one is struggling with one's
> own
> >understanding. But I know that early Christianity was quite different from
> its
> >contemporary form, even with the various churches.
> >
> >
>
> The most important in this repsect were the efforts of St. John and then of
> St Paul.
> They made from the Son of God, God himself.
explain
>
>
> >
>
> Indeed, very difficult to say what was the original message. Many of the
> "apocryphal gospels" were destroyed as well all the various interpretations
> and perceptions were surpressed by the adherents of one or another dogm.
and many of them are extant, even many of the Sibylline texts are extant so what
kind of impression should be left?. We are used to thinking about the New
Testament corpus in the west in western terms but some of the apocrypha is
accepted.
>
> But the most important innovation was that of St Paul who forged a
> particular message, took it out from its Judaic context and and stated that
> "we are all circucised in God".
the Old Law is transformed in Christ. It is the New Temple, the New Jerusalem
and it is thought of precisely that way even today. Stephan, consider the study
on the Synagogue at Dura Europus (Dunbarton Oaks Papers? Can't remember, but
look it up) The relationship between the early Christian Churches and
hellenistic judaism is striking. Just look! Also confer in Wellescz's Studies
in Byzantine Chant, the comparisons between extant middle eastern synagogue
singing and early Christian chant both in form, structure and even melodies.
Also, unrelated but interesting , in the latter the discussion of Romanos's
melodies and Syrian folk music.
>
>
> SN
G
Stephan Nikolov
Crazy wrote in message <7cpm8u$sbq$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
>>He himself acknowledged that he was not the only one.
>
>
> They'll quote something about Him being "the only begotten Son of God".
> Speaking of Begotten (and linking a previous thread) have they shown in
>Bulgaria the flick Begotten? Very alternative ... I mean, very!
>
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
I know they will.... and not only they..... But then, my Catholic education
comes to help and combined with some skills in history it might become very
aggressive.
In practical terms this means to combine readings from the Vulgata with
listing the
anathemas to monophysits (those who professed the one and only nature of
Christ) passed by the early church councils. Then the baptists will turn to
trivial heretics: to Protestants just as they are. And I will lose track of
my Soul in this very moment.
This is to say, I do not wanna mix Faith with Religion. The Faith deals with
the Soul, religions deal with the Body.
Nevertheless, the double nature of Christ (divine and human) is presupposed
in every man
with the act of combining the Spirit of God with a handful of earth.
Nevertheless, Jesus seems to demonstrate how the Son of God, who is also Son
of Man, can be also God begotten.
Obviously, here the matter of Soul is concerned.
And there is another problem, is the handful of earth held together by the
soul, or rather vice-versa: the soul is kept in the body. In other words,
should the Faith organise a religion or the religion is to keep the Faith
down-to-earth.....
In the second case, I think, we loose our divinity.
SN
Stephan Nikolov
Forget religion and give in Faith.
SN
sp...@erols.com wrote in message <36F090C7...@erols.com>...
>
>
>Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>
>> >> Well, Jesus Christ was a Son of God on Earth, wasn't he?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, he was and he was also the Son of Man.
>
>Perfect God and perfect man as his Mom was fully human, there having been a
>blessed virgin birth but no immaculate conception. :)
>
>> And while he was alive he
>> did
>> >experience persecution, misunderstanding, even physical abuse and
>> eventually
>> >the crucifiction.
>> >
>> >> >Do you think He was the only one?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Same here.
>> >
>>
>> He himself acknowledged that he was not the only one.
>
>only First and Last, Alpha and Omega, and that no one comes to the Father
except
>through Him.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >And do you think He really got true understanding and recognition?
>> >>
>> >> He certainly got recognition. After all, millions of people now
pray
>> in
>> >> His name. As far as understanding, some got some understanding, but
"true
>> >> understanding"... I don't know about that.
>> >
>> >Yes, that's difficult to say especially when one is struggling with
one's
>> own
>> >understanding. But I know that early Christianity was quite different
from
>> its
>> >contemporary form, even with the various churches.
>> >
>> >
>>
Stephan Nikolov
Ti oshte ne mozhesh da go razberesh tova za TJ.
Politikata za imenuvane naistina beshe otgovor na "pantjurkistkata" politika
na Yozal, v kojato avtonomija na bylgarskite turci beshe edin vazhen
element.
Istina e, che obache, celijat podhod na TJ beshe greshen i prestypen.
Zashto greshen: Zashtoto integracijata ne stava po tozi nachin. Ako, se
operirame ot chuvstvo za humannost, bi trjabvalo da kazhem, che momentyt
beshe naj-meko kazan nepodhodjasht.
Takyv tip politka beshe za 50-te, ne za 80-te. Ti ne mozhesh da trybish
kolko0 si humanen, da podpisvash Helsinki i t.n. i da gi
narushavash.Nasilstnena asimilacija na Turcite mozheshe da stane togava, a
ne prez 1980-te.
Istinskata politika e tazi na integracija, politikata na morkova, a ne na
tojagata. Pone da gi beshe napravil komunisti, akop ne neshto drugo i da gi
nauchi na bylgarski, i da ima dade njakakvo mjasto v obshtestvoto.
Trjabvashe da ima politika na individualna integracija, a ne na kolektivna.
No za tova ne im stigaha mozycite na komunistite, koito misleha
kolektivistichno, ot samoto nachalo, ta do kraja. I zatvyrdiha
grupovo-kolektivnata identifikacija na turcite, ako onezi sluchajno sa
propusnali da ja imat.
I "ekskurzijata", tja beshe dobre planirana, ama Turcija hlopna kepencite na
Turcite po edno vreme i gi ostavi sami na sydbata si: taka che im ostana
samo edin izbor: avtonomija ili nasilstveno preimenuvane i otkaz ot
religija.
Tova napravi politikata na TJ dvojno po-prestypna, zashtoto beshe i
predatelstvo kym nacionalnite interesi. Prestypna beshe zashtoto
narushavashe choveshki prava. I zashtoto potyrsi v nacionalizma opora za
svojata si vlast: kakto v partijata, taka i v dyrzhavata. Zashtoto zatvyrdi
obraza na drugija, v tozi sluchaj na "Turcite" kato neshto chuzhdo za
bylgarskata dyrzhavnost. Zashtoto pilagashe nasilie. I taka vsyshtnost
podgotvi Bosna v Bylgarija vmesto da ja otmeni.
Shto se otnasja za Ferdinand, istina e che e rysel seme nasam - natam. Ama
maj se e pridyrzhal v sferata na dvoreca, a ne e hodel na seksualni
ekskurzii po selata. No, kakto i da e. Shte go proverja, kato se vyrna v BG.
Az njamam nikakvi problemi ako TJ se okazhe kopele na Ferdinand. Tova njama
da napravi ot TJ nito po-dobyr, ni po-losh.
SN
SN
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c29v5$h3v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Guentcho Skordev
> naselenie - izvednaj gi pqlni s gniav i gi kara da se hvqrliat
> v bitka za pravda. I to izkliuchitelno po-mladite v grupata.
> Prichinata - spored men - e, che te sami ne znayat do kakva
> stepen im e promit mozqkqt ot sled 10 noemvriyskata
> presa - kogato se igraeshe golemiat teatqr - Borba za
> Demokracia. Otdavna veche vsichki znaem, che tozi teatqr
> beshe razigran ot sqshtite hora, koito nay se boyat ot
> demokracia. No na - niakak razdeliat neshtata - presata
> uspia da im vnushi, che stava niakakva ogromna promiana i
> da shtampira v tiah sxemite na bqdeshtoto im povedenie. I
> poneje v tozi period Turskiat vqpros beshe nujen za da se
> ritne za posleden pqt padnaliat Vlastelin - te go razduha i
> napraviha gorkoto tursko naselenie - za tiahno nay-goliamo
> uchudvane - nay-izstradali geroi. I s umilenie chetiahme v
Ne sym syglasen. Az mislja, che sled deseti noemvri _nedostatychno_ se
govori za tezi neshta. Mozhe bi si prava v edno, che vyprosyt se
izpolzuva, kogato e neobhodim na njakogo. No ima li njakoj nakazan
(mozhe i da ima, az ne znamk)? I mislja, che ne sym samo az, kojto ot
predi tova smjatashe vsichko otva za nespravedlivost. Kogato kazah, che
po-kysno sym nauchil za stanaloto, njamah predvid tolkova po-kysno.
Naprotiv, struva mi se, che sled deseti cjalata istorija kato che se
potuli.
> presata - a to i naistina beshe prekrasno - za mili sceni na
> bqlgari, podpomagashti s hrana i topli zavivki, chay, kafe
> demonstrirashtite v nay-golemite studove tursko-
> useshtashti se BG grajdani. Az daje ne znam za kakvo sa
> demonstrirali po noshtite i studovete na Sofia - dotolkova
Dokolkoto si spimnjam, sedjaha i chakaha dali Narodnoto sybranie shte
im razreshi da si vyrnat imenata. Togava njakoi tam imaha meraci da
zadylzhat vsichki bylgarski grazhdani da imat familni imena,
zavyrshvashti na "ov" i "ev". Ta si govorihme kak li togava shte se
kazva Pirinski. (Pyk posle se okaza, che nego mozhe bi ne go e
zasjagalo ;-).
> Vsqshtnost iskam da kaja, che DESETKI godini
> sqshtestvuvashe preimenuvane i na BG naselenieto! Koy ot
> nas mojeshe da si krqsti svobodno deteto, kajete mi?
Tova samo vloshava neshtata.
> tazi knijka. Na silnite ni protesti, che tova e samo edno
> prouchvane za proizhodqt na imenata v BG, a ne Zakon, ili
> dori ne postanovlenie - se otgovariashe prosto "Tova niama
> nikakvo znachenie!" Do 8 mesechna vqzrast dqshteria mi
> sedia bez ime! Pri tova imeto y beshe chisto bqlgarsko,
> prosto go niamashe v knijkata! Mojeh da ya krqstia s nay-
> idiotski imena - kato Krushka, traktoristka, ili podobni
Da, i moeto ime uzh bilo samo umalitelno za Evgeni i Genadi (da se
zapita chovek kak sa se kazvali togava njakoi bylgari ot staro
vreme...)
A pyk vyrhovete v planinite si sedjat preimenuvani i sigurno taka i
shte si ostanat. No ne im e za pryv pyt, kakto i s imenata na selishta
i ulici. Tova samo mezhdu drugoto, ne e tolkova vazhno.
Pozdravi
Gentcho
Krasimir Yalamov
[del]
> Pone da gi beshe napravil komunisti,
[del]
woman...@my-dejanews.com
Be, J., ne mojesh li da razberesh - i drugi nesqotvetstvia...
A Woman-beingqt otvrqshta:
- Eeeeee, nachi!!!
Zatva kazvat horata - ne hodi s deca na bania!
Ti im obiasniavash, che sapuna NE E kashkaval i ne stava za yadene - a i
obratnoto!!! - ama te si znayat tva - i lapat sapuna barabar s mehurite i si
misliat "Peni se, ne peni se - sha go yadem!".
/Oshte me dqrji narodno-tvorcheskia duh!/
Za kqf se vqrnahte na edna takava stara prepiska s TrustLove??? Tva si e nasha
lichna korespondencia protiv Crazy i podobni! Kvo vi vliza v rabotata???
No shtom mnoo znaete - eto i moyat otgovor! I vi obrqshtam vnimanie, che pak
nay-mladite se obajdate, a istinskite "vqlci" - na moya vqzrast si mqlchat i
se usmihvat snizhoditelno!
Vij sea, Stef! Ima edni neshta, det ne biva da se smesvat! Mnogo sa, de! No
nay ne biva da se smesva Moral i Etika - s Politika! Ako bivashe - az samata
shtiah da sqm sega Politik, a ne drebna Moralistka!
"Chichko BG Prezidenta Todor postqpi mnooogo loo-shooo! Toy se otnese ama
mnoo- go looosho naaay-izvednaaj s gorkite turciiii! NuNuNu!, chichko
Prezident! Znaesh li kolko losho si postqpil! Taka li te uchiha v Detskata
Gradina!!! :((((((((((" - kazvate vie.
I chichko Prezident pochva zasrameno da pushta sqlzi i sopoli, i obeshtava
drug pqt da ne obijda drugarchetata si!
Na chichko Prezidenta nikoga ne mu e pukalo izobshto za Moral, Etika i drugi
krasivi peyzajcheta vqv vqtreshnata politika na BG, v upravlenieto na naroda,
koyto mu e bil podnesen na panica! Cialata mu /im/ politika VINAGI beshe
Nepravilna, poglednato ot kva da e gledna tochka, osven tazi, na Mafia,
zavladiala stranata i stremiashta se da ya zadqrji s nay-goliama izgoda i
pechalba za sebe si. I kato se razglejda "Turskoto sqtresenie" - nito za mig
ne triabva da se zabravia celia predshestvasht period ot 44 - ta do sega.
BG i grajdanite y minaha periodi, v koito sa bili sqglasni na absoliutno
vsichko - vkliuchitelno i da priemat Turska viara, samo i samo da ostanat
jivi, da ostanat na rabota, da ostanat v gradovete i selata si, da si ostanat
v kqshtata, v koyato vinagi sa si bili! Zashtoto NIKOGA grajdanite na NRB ne
sa imali NIKAKVI prava. Tova, che vie ne pomnite, a kato slushate - ostavate
niakak nezatrognati - ne pravi po-leki ili po-romantichni vqlnite na otnemane
razlichni prava na naselenieto - bez znachenie ot koya viara sa bili!
Pravoto na Sobstvenost, na Obrazovanie, na Gramotnost, na NeGramotnost, na
Svobodno pridvijvane, na Svobodno nepridvijvane, na Chasten biznes, na
uchastie v Kolektivi, na Kooperativno dvijenie... Be VSICHKO, koeto vseki
chovek po sveta misli, che mu se polaga po rojdenie - v BG v edin moment
beshe otneto. I nikoy ne kaza gqk - osven chujdite radiostancii. Ama gi
zaglushavaha.
Tochno v tozi period, ako Liubimite upraviteli biaha poiskali da ne se
kazvame taka, kakto se kazvame - a da imame ruski, kitayski, marsianski
imena, ili pa poredni nomera - shteshe da se osqshtestvi! Niamashe kakvo da
gi spre. I niamashe koy da kaje, che "ne e etichno", "ne e choveshko" ili
kvoto i da bilo, zashtoto te umeeha mnogo sladko da provejdat sqbrania i da
poluchavat chrez glasuvane sqglasieto na naroda 100% vqv vsichko. Ne go
izvqrshiha - zashtoto ne e bilo nujno v momenta!
NIKOGA ne gi e interesuvala etikata ili celesqobraznostta - shtom na niakogo
ot tiah mu hrumvashe neshto - praveshe se! Niamam traktor - sqseda ima - eto
ti Zakon za Nacionalizacia - sega nikoy niama - no az imaaam! Gore-dolu taka
stavashe Izobretiavaneto na zakonite i postanovleniata! - Idva red na sina mi
da hodi voynik, no az iskam toy da ne hodi, a da sledva - eto ti
postanovlenie, che lipsvat studenti po edi kvo si - i se dava predimstvo na
Vissheto obrazovanie. I gotovo. E, kat se poizuchat decata - mahame zakona,
za da ne polzva drugite. I taka si vqrveshe vsichko. I nikoy ne smeeshe da
misli, che neshto ne e nared. Be dori da pritejavash naniz jqltici beshe
nezakonno - nishto, che sa ot prababa ti! Konfiskuvat ti gi - i tva e! I ne
se znae kqde i u kogo otivat.
Na fona na cialoto tova - sqbliakoha turskite drehi na turcite oshte vo vreme
ono! Zatvoriha im djamiite, vzeha im zemite, obrekoha gi na vechno otglejdane
na tiutiun, prakticheski gi zakrepostiha za zemiata - niamaha pravo da
napuskat tehnite sela i gradove. Tva da ne e MOralno??? Az lichno sqm
razgovariala s turcheta-stroitelni rabotnici, koito biaha izumeni ot
zeleninata i krasotata na Stara planina i kazvaha, che biha se premestili
vednaga ot pustinnite si i varovikovi rodopski sela, kqdeto nishto ne nikne,
osven tiutiun. No ne im davali.
Be kakvo znaete vie!
V tezi imenno vremena - kakvoto hrumneshe na Vojdovete - sqshto i predi TJ -
praveha si go! Ako poiskaha da nakarat mqjete da rajdat vmesto jenite - i tva
shteshe da stane! Ma ne im hrumna! Obiaviha, che Turci v BG niama! - a samo
nasila poturcheni BG - i shapka na toyaga! I vsichko si beshe nared -
zapretnaha se da dovizchistiat malkoto prava, koito biaha ostanali na horata
- taka se stigna v edin moment i do Kotencata i Kuchencata, koito taka
vbesiha v edin moy post MM, kato che li toy LICNO bi se radval, ako chovek
niama pravo da si ima ni kuche, ni kote... /Izobshto ot tozi post nasetne vze
da mi pravi vpechatlenie neadekvatnite mu reakcii - i go vzeh na tashak,
koeto ni napravi "vragove" :)/
Sega - shto gi pisha tia raboti?! Po sqshtata prichina, po koyato spomenah i
Zabranata da si krqshtavash decata kakto ti e kef! Vie - estestveno - ne
chetete dostatqchno Agata Kristi - i si reshihte, che az zashtitavam tezata:
- Shtom na men e bilo zabraneno - neka e zabraneno i na tiah!
Da, ama ne!
Tva, koeto iskah da kaja e, che NIKOGA BG pravitelstvo ne e deystvalo po-
razlichno ot tezi vremena, za koito govorim - a imenno Preimenuvaneto i
Extradiraneto /makar i dobrovolno - poslednoto!/
Daje ima neshto po-interesno - turskoto naselenie imashe dosta predimstva
pred ostanaloto - ne che koy znae kvo, no niakoi predimstva pri priemane vqv
visshi uchilishta, po-visoki zaplati - "pooshtrenia" i drugi drebni
podmazvania, koito ne struvaha koy znae kakvo na pravitelstvoto, ama praveshe
mnogo dobro vpechatlenie "navqn".
I stigame do "togava". Kakvo go prihvana izvednaj TJ - koyto umirashe da bqde
"Liubimiat chovek ot Naroda" i da se chetka s razni "blagodeyania" kqm
otdelni i neotdelni hora - ta izvednaj hvqrli "Ochilata" i "Noshtnata
shapchica", ogoli hishtni zqbi i stana "loshiat Kumcho Vqlcho"? Kakvo go
prinudi izvednaj da se yurne i da zapochne da osqshtestviava nasila i nabqrzo
takiva riskovi operacii, koito da go izlojat i pred sveta, i pred naroda, da
predizbikat negoduvanie i omraza, da dovedat do poveche vreda, otkolkoto
polza - NA PRUV POGLED.
Eto, vie sichki - kato golemi umnici - vednaga predlojihte kak TOY e triabvalo
da postqpi! Haaaahahaha!!! Shtoto toy, gorkia, ne se e setil!!! I naistina ste
poviarvali, che TOY e bil edin neshtasten tqpak, koyto ne e e znael kak se
prayat tia raboti!
Vijte kakvo! Zapomnete edno MNOGO VAJNO NESHTO! NIKOY, NIKOGA ne e kazval za
TJ, che e GLUPAV! Nito dori si go e pomislial! Nito v BG, nito navqn - a toy
dosta poobikoli!
Vseobshto mnenie beshe, che toy e UMEN I HITUR!!! Imenno! /Stinka! Ti da
mqlchish! Shtot TI ne si!!! :((((/
Znaete li, che edinstven TOY se zadqrja NAY-DULGO na vlast - makar da beshe
pqlno s "pretendenti". Daje chesto i "Goliamoto bratche" ne go haresvashe,
mqmreshe go, gledashe go na krqv - ama za sqshtoto tva vreme tam se smeniha
kqde 10na, a nashia si sedia SAM NA POLE ON!
Taka che ZABRAVETE legendata, che e bil Tqp! Ili pa Senilen! I shtom e
pribegnal do NEOBMISLENI I BURZI deystvia, zastrashavashti dori i sobstvenoto
mu polojenie - imalo e prichini, i te V NIKAKUV sluchay ne sa bili lichni,
mislovni, individualno harakterni i t.n.
BG beshe - may i sega e - CENTUR NA MEJDUNARODNIA TERORIZUM! Edin ot
centrovete - i to NE nay-neznachitelnia! KINTEX da vi govori neshto?
Teroristichni shkoli da vi govori neshto? Znam, che ne vi - no na nas,
pomneshtite - ni govori! Yaser Arafat kolko pqti e idval v BG togava, kogato
NIKOYA druga dqrjava ne go priemashe! I kqde otidoha vsichki palestinski
teroristi, koito sqsipaha Yordania - posle izgoneni ot tam - izgrizkaha
cvetushtia Livan s parcalkite - i nakraya biaha izgoneni i ot nego sqs sili
na OON - ta v kakva posoka otpqtuvaha, razmahali usmihnato Kalashnici????
Veche sqm vi go kazvala - celi 3 meseca jiviaha v BG - v Sofia, po
nay-skqpite hoteli. Ama nikak ne im haresa - dori po sravnenie s Livan i
Yordania - ta postepenno izcheznaha - koy znae kqde. Nie ponauchavahme po
neshto ot radio London, Svobodna Evropa, Glasqt na Amerika...
Govorite /cheta/ protiv naroda na selo - i kak te vse oshte se chudiat shto
ne si haresvahme "onazi" vlast. Ami te, prosto, ne znaeha, che ima takiva
stancii i ne gi slushaha! I si niamat predstava - pochti - v kakva strana sa
jiveli! Stigashe im da si imat po 1 dka za chastni nujdi, po edna krava i 2-3
kozi - pari davaha samo za po 20-30 hlaba na den - i to za jivotnite - za
tiah si praveha rqchno - i dovolni! Kradnat ot TKZSto tova, koeto sami ne
mogat da si proizvedat... Che izhranvaha dori i rodninite si v gradovete. I
im haresvashe! Shto da ne im haresva?
No nie slushahme - i ot tam nauchavahme dosta neshta - koy bil hvanat da
prodava Kalashnici na nam si koi teroristi, drug - drugi orqjia v druga chast
na sveta! Narkotici! Tonove narkotici gi prinudiha vednaj da podpaliat - i gi
zasneha - ama az pak ne viarvam, che gi izgoriha! Tc! Hich ne mi se viarva! I
taya tainstvena istoria s pokushenieto v/u Papata ne se izyasni dokray - ili
pa az sqm bila v niakoy liuboven period - sliapa i gluha za vsichko...
Ta - kogato se zapochna takava SPESHNA, NEDOOBMISLENA, NEDOORGANIZIRANA akcia
za iztrivane sledite na tursko naselenie - zabravete, che e bilo nechie tqpo
hrumvane!
Az vi kazah veche zashto beshe - ako shtete mi viarvayte! Puka mi na
jiletkata! Che turcite da ne bi da ne sa plakali 50tte god do togava da gi
pusnat da "otskochat" do TR! No ne davaha dori 1 semeystvo da go stori - ta
biaha i zagradili granicite - hele pa turskata - kato nepristqpna krepost! Da
ne sa go pravili za Sofianskite naivnici, det s ranichka she se urnat da
pobegnat v Tursko??? Tc! Za turcite sa go pravili - za da gi zadqrjat tuk, da
gi doyat, da proivejdat TUTUNa, da si gi imat - imaha si i te miasto v
jivota.
I izvednaj - gorkia glupcho Chichko Prezidenta! - kak glupavo gi obidi - ta te
sqrdito se dignaha da si hodiat v kqshti!
Be slepi li ste? Ili niamate niakoe ot osnovnite centqrcheta v mozqka??? Koy
pravi takiva gluposti?
Kak - sled kato ne davaha muha da prelitne ot BG kqm Svobodata - izvednaj
razreshiha na tolkova mnogo hora da se mahnat, kato dori gi prishporvaha kqm
tova??? Da ne bi shtot izvednaj e stanalo adski svobodno i "perestroeno" v BG
- i veche e niamalo kak da im se otkazva?! Aaayde de!
Ako iskaha - mojeha da si gi prekrqshtavat do Kraya na sveta, da gi dqrjat
kato robi i zalojnici, da ne gi pushtat da mrqdnat ot selata im, da gi
nakarat da poviarvat, che ne samo ne sa turci, ami sa indianci! No niamaha
vreme! Triabvashe svetkavichno da se otqrvat ot tiah - inache triabvashe da
se skarat s cialata Isliamska obshtnost! Ili da dadat Avtonomia... Ili da
pochant voenni deystvia, kakto u Srbcko!
I tuk spiram - shtot tva veche sqm go razkazala - bez nikva polza za nejnite
vi i samovliubeni mozqcheta!!!
Prodqljavayte da si mislite kak ste MNOO po-umni i hitri ot TJ! I kak ste
shteli hitro da postqpite na negovo miasto!
Ama pa ne vi stiga akqla da stignete do miastoto mu!! I ot tam veche cialata
postroyka ruhva!
I, Stef, az sqshto ne sqm sqvsem glupava! MOGA da razbiram vsichko, koeto ti,
ili niakoe drugo lape, toku shto preglqtnalo proshtqpalnata pita, izmqdri
izpod rqba na masata, na koyato sediat Golemite i si prikazvat!
Ako ne se beshe obqrnal LICHNO kqm men - izobshto niamashe otnovo da vzema
dumata - chesto si mqlcha po mnogo neshta, haresvam da vi gledam - kak
mislite, kak se priblijavate i otdalechavate ot istinata... Priatno e.
Poniakoga daje gadnichko - kato se obadi niakoya ot Glavite...
Obajdam se po takiva "mqchni" vqprosi samo kogato resha da vi pokaja
neshtichko i ot neshtata, deto sediat zad vratata na Zakliuchenata staya - za
da vidia kak shte im reagirate. Uvi, v povecheto sluchai s nasmeshka i
nadmennost! Shtom vie ne znaete neshto - znachi ne sqshtestvuva! :)
Sqshtestvuvaaa, sqshtestvuvaaaa, uvi! Mnogo neshta sqshtestvuvat, koito se
znaeha, znaehme gi - a sega izvednaj - ne sa stignali do vas!
Zashto ne stignaha? Kqde se izgubiha? Kqde potqnaha???
Pone za "onazi" epoha pitayte ochevidcite - i kolkoto poveche ot tiah - po-
dobre! Tuk ne moje da ima "neponosimost" na pokoleniata! Ako ne pitate nas -
shte vi "izrabotiat" i shte doydete pak na nashto!
Slava Bogu - jivi sme oshte i pomnim!
Moite deca ne shtat da slushat takiva neshta - misliat, che ne gi zasiagat.
Mnogo ot vas sqshto niama da gi zasiagat mnogo skoro - ako ostanat izvqn BG.
No ako naistina iskate da znaete TOCNHO kak sa neshatat - may nay-dobra e
taktikata na Tarkalanov - chue neshto - i si kazva - ne moje da bqde - pa
trqgva da prouchva, za da te oprovergae. Poniakoga moje da uspee, no moje i
da ne uspee... A shte nauchi neshto...
Eto, doplaka mi se da chuya Nobody da kazva, che "mrazi inteligenciata"! I si
spomnih roditelite mi i tehnite "sqratnici" ot 50tte godini - kak vqztorjeno
se sqbiraha i praveha razni satirichni spektakli, v koito se podigravaha s
risk za jivota si s Chervenkov, TJ, SSSR!!! Komunizma - uj podigravaha
kapitalizma, no si licheshe, che ne bash...
"Stqrsheloviat Teatqr"! 2 ili 3 predstavlenia! Nay-liubimite hora na
izkustvoto na BG - Parcala, Bagarov, Kaloyanchev, St.Mutafova, Lez Ivanova,
Radoy, V.Petrov - po celi noshti sediaha budni, izmisliaha, repetiraha,
kiskaha se s trepereshti gashti! Az sediah tam, nezabelejimo hlape! -
zashtoto niamashe na kogo da me ostaviat - oshte pomnia textovete na pesnite!
Podigravki! Po niakakva ligava moderna melodia - i izvednaj tqp soc. text:
"Az sqm traktoristka s blesnali kosi!
V men prostora pliska slqnchevi lqchi!.....
....Mili, Liubiiiimiiii! Elaa, vzemiii meee!
Neka stroiiiimeeee! Noviaaa jivooo-ooot!
Kaaak da ne sqm goooor-daaa! Shtoom se vliubi v meee-eeen!
100 i 5 rekoo-ooorda chuu-pish vsee-ki deeen!"
Gavri! Podigravki!
Peeha gi v ochite na Vqlcho Chervenkov! Mi TJ e kato "Doktorant" :))))) sled
Vqlko Chervenkov!!!
Ama i toy ne gi tqrpeshe, de! Imashe spektakql "Diavolskoto ogledalo" - po
Andersen. Uj che popadnali parchenca ot ogledaloto v "nashi drugari" - ta
zatva bili postqpvali losho - podigraaavkiii! Ama ne mina - 2 predstavlenia,
ili pa oshte na generalnata repeticia - i padna!
"Novite drehi na Kralia" - triabvashe da se kazva "Kraliat e gol" - i si
beshe bash za TJ!!! Az go gledah pone tri pqti - no biah malka i ne pomnia
dali biaha predstavlenia, ili samo repeticii - no biaha poseteni, smiaha se
horata kato ludi - a posle avtorite hodeha baya vreme s opqnati lica!
Ne shta da gi spomenavam, zashtoto kakvo znachenie ima sega!?
No imashe takiva neshta! Ot roditelite i diadovcite vi! Poznayvame i nie
neshto, pomnim i razbirame - dosta neshta! Dosta neshta!
Az nay-mnogo se iznenadvam, kogato otkria, che VIE ne gi znaete! Ne vashite
deca - a VIE!! Koito "pipnahte" onezi vremena! A veche pametta vi e iztrita i
nanovo formatirana!
Do tam - che da ne ni viarvate! Tqjno!
No az ne sqm borkinia - po priroda. Az ostaviam Jivotqt da si teche, kakto mu
se shte - i ne se ambiciram da go promeniam. Moje da se vpregna poniakoga da
zashtitia niakoy, kato vidia kak nezaslujeno Zlodeite na Sveta mu se hvqrlait
s Omraza i Gavra! I tolkoz.
No naistina mi stava poniakoga jal za vas - tolkova gordi i samouvereni, s
prezrenie kqm ostanalite! Vie, Golemite Umnici!
A taka neveji!
Jalko! :(((((((
Ama...
J. /Pootchayana.../
No pone ne si mislete, molia, che ste PO-UMNI ot ONZI!!!
Tc!
sp...@erols.com
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> Crazy wrote in message <7cpm8u$sbq$1...@camel15.mindspring.com>...
> >>He himself acknowledged that he was not the only one.
> >
> >
What is lost is only potential? For achieving theosis is only potential. we
cannot say who has or will.
sp...@erols.com
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> Galina,
> Forget religion and give in Faith.
>
both were implicit and I think not exclusivist? WHo knows the intent of God in
the possible facilitation of buddhists, for example. Should we judge the intent
of God? We all only go on faith with what we find natural to believe, after
all. FOr after everything, we are each and everyone, at our passing from this
life, essentially and entirely alone.
>
> SN
> sp...@erols.com wrote in message <36F090C7...@erols.com>...
> >
> >
> >Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> >
> >> >> Well, Jesus Christ was a Son of God on Earth, wasn't he?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, he was and he was also the Son of Man.
> >
> >Perfect God and perfect man as his Mom was fully human, there having been a
> >blessed virgin birth but no immaculate conception. :)
> >
> >> And while he was alive he
> >> did
> >> >experience persecution, misunderstanding, even physical abuse and
> >> eventually
> >> >the crucifiction.
> >> >
> >> >> >Do you think He was the only one?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >
> >> >Same here.
> >> >
> >>
> >> He himself acknowledged that he was not the only one.
> >
> >only First and Last, Alpha and Omega, and that no one comes to the Father
> except
> >through Him.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >And do you think He really got true understanding and recognition?
> >> >>
> >> >> He certainly got recognition. After all, millions of people now
> pray
> >> in
> >> >> His name. As far as understanding, some got some understanding, but
> "true
> >> >> understanding"... I don't know about that.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, that's difficult to say especially when one is struggling with
> one's
> >> own
> >> >understanding. But I know that early Christianity was quite different
> from
> >> its
> >> >contemporary form, even with the various churches.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
Krasimir Yalamov
>
> Na chichko Prezidenta nikoga ne mu e pukalo izobshto za Moral, Etika i drugi
> krasivi peyzajcheta vqv vqtreshnata politika na BG, v upravlenieto na naroda,
> koyto mu e bil podnesen na panica!
> Cialata mu /im/ politika VINAGI beshe Nepravilna,
> poglednato ot kva da e gledna tochka, osven tazi, na Mafia,
> zavladiala stranata i stremiashta se da ya zadqrji s nay-goliama izgoda i
> pechalba za sebe si.
Predi nyakolko dni sushtiat tozi tip
be okachestven ot WB kato Spasitel na Bulgaria.
Fenomen na Multi-Analna Anonimnost?
> Vijte kakvo! Zapomnete edno MNOGO VAJNO NESHTO! NIKOY, NIKOGA ne e kazval za
> TJ, che e GLUPAV! Nito dori si go e pomislial! Nito v BG, nito navqn - a toy
> dosta poobikoli!
>
> Vseobshto mnenie beshe, che toy e UMEN I HITUR!!! Imenno!
Osobeno: mudur. Zatova ostavi cvetushto pokolenie i cvetushta durjava...
Razbira se che TJ e bil hitur i mrusen -
inache nyamashe da ocelee tolkova dulgo na vurha na "proletarskata
diktatura".
Vuzmojnostite davat vuzmojnosti, vlastta - vlast. Osobeno totalitarnata.
Za chast ot naroda i "shirokite mu masi" obache TJ si ostava umen i
mudur durjavnik...
Guentcho Skordev
On 18 Mar 1999 18:47:02 GMT Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
[del]
> ... obache TJ si ostava umen i mudur durjavnik...
[del]
Guentcho Skordev
> im razreshi da si vyrnat imenata. Togava njakoi tam imaha meraci da
> zadylzhat vsichki bylgarski grazhdani da imat familni imena,
> zavyrshvashti na "ov" i "ev". Ta si govorihme kak li togava shte se
> kazva Pirinski. (Pyk posle se okaza, che nego mozhe bi ne go e
> zasjagalo ;-).
Zabravih da kazha, che naskoro njakoj maj pak e podhvyrlil tazi ideja...
Gentcho
Krasimir Yalamov
Tova _ne_ e moi tekst.
Kak se sdobihte s nego - chrez fabrikuvane?
KY
Guentcho Skordev
> Guentcho Skordev wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 1999 18:47:02 GMT Krasimir Yalamov wrote:
>> > ... obache TJ si ostava umen i mudur durjavnik...
> Kak se sdobihte s nego - chrez fabrikuvane?
Da, pochti... Tekstyt si e Vash, no e izvaden ot konteksta. Znam, che ne ste
kazvali nishto takova kato Vashe mnenie i ne bihte kazali. Nadjavam se i
nikoj drug da ne e priel naseriozno tazi moja falshifikacija, dano da ne
gresha! Ne sym iskal da Vi pripisvam neshta, koito ne tvyrdite, taka che
njakoj da povjarva, che ste go kazali.
Gentcho
Crazy
>And there is another problem, is the handful of earth held together by the
>soul, or rather vice-versa: the soul is kept in the body.
Is an inflated balloon kept together by air, or is air kept together by
the balloon?
>In other words,
>should the Faith organise a religion or the religion is to keep the Faith
>down-to-earth.....
>In the second case, I think, we loose our divinity.
It isn't lost. It is just being obscured.
Love,
-= Ivan =-
Stephan Nikolov
sp...@erols.com wrote in message <36F14416...@erols.com>...
SN>> should the Faith organise a religion or the religion is to keep the
Faith
>> down-to-earth.....
>> In the second case, I think, we loose our divinity.
>>
>
>What is lost is only potential? For achieving theosis is only potential.
we
>cannot say who has or will.
>
divinity.
SN
Stephan Nikolov
Che ne bezhe dazhe i efektivno. Za tova otdelih "loshoto" v otdelna chast na
postinga.
Napravi go po naj-typija nachin i ne samo , che ne ni spasi ot Bosna, a mi
podgotvi za edna Bosna. Ne samo beshe losh, ama i nekadyren v tozi sluchaj.
Edinstvenoto, za koeto posluzhi beshe da si zadyrzhi lichnata vlast sresgtu
VYTRESHNATA PARTIJNA KONKURENCIJA za oshte njakolko godini.
Tova ne mo'sh li go razbra.
SN
woman...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7crdmv$uol$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Stephan Nikolov
Guentcho Skordev wrote in message <7cris5$dm7$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>...
>Yavno ste vzeli prisyrce mojata molba da ne se citira prekaleno mnogo :-)
>
>
>> ... obache TJ si ostava umen i mudur durjavnik...
Shte se spukam ot smjah.......... ;)
SN
woman...@my-dejanews.com
In article <7cse6h$ci9$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
"Stephan Nikolov" <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Ma tova ti objasnjavam be, zhena!!!!.
Ne, ne mi!
> Che ne bezhe dazhe i efektivno.
Behse.
> Napravi go po naj-typija nachin
:))))))))))))))
> i ne samo , che ne ni spasi ot Bosna
Spasi ni, spasi!
> a mi podgotvi za edna Bosna.
Che kqde e tazi nasha Bosna? Koga??? Koy izmria???
Imame jiv primer kakvo stava, kogato niakoy niama vqzmojnost da resgira taka
bqrzo i efikastno - ne che sa mogli da go napraviat po tozi nachin, de! Za
shtastie - v BG mojeshe.
> Ne samo beshe losh, ama i nekadyren v tozi sluchaj.
Ne. V NIKOY sluchay ne beshe nekadqren! Otlichno kqdqren za celite na kastata
si. I v sluchaya - sluchayno beshe polezen i za vsichki.
Povtariam - "priemlivi zagubi". Jertvash malkoto, za da ne zagubish goliamoto.
> Edinstvenoto, za koeto posluzhi beshe da si zadyrzhi lichnata vlast sresgtu
> VYTRESHNATA PARTIJNA KONKURENCIJA za oshte njakolko godini.
I tva ne! Tochno tozi sluchay go kapichna! Moje da se kaje, che se "pojertva"
za naroda si!!! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Tochno zaradi nego uspiaha da go hqrzulnat - i mu podliaha voda pred krayno
naivnia Gorbachov, koyto ne go traeshe, zashtoto ne uspia da go opoznae
dostatqchno. Polqga se po tqpovatia mu i neskoposan vid. I ne razbra, che kat
kapichne Tato - shte zagubi i ciala BG. Nito tqpacite, det go kapichnaha -
razbraha. A kat se usetiha - veche beshe mnogo kqsno - za kqsmet na vsichki
nas! Zatova vinagi kazvam, che "svobodata" v BG beshe sluchayno poluchena, a
ne izvoyuvana ili spechelena. Ili shte kajesh, che niakoy ya specheli????
Niakoy ya izvoyuva??? :)))))))))) Ne! Rezultat na glupava greshka na lakomi
dushici!
> Tova ne mo'sh li go razbra. > SN
Az TVA go razbiraaaam! No prosto ne e istina! Taka vijdate VIE kartinkata!
Shtot gledate ot nisko. A men mi omrqzna da vi povdigam za ptichi pogled
:(((((
Tva beshe posledniat mi komentar po temata. Koyto ima ushi da vidi. Koyto ima
oshi - da chue. A koyto ima rqce - da prikazva. I niakoi da si misliat. Moe i
da se rodi neshto...
I ne razkazvam istoria za "neshtasten i nerazbran Vojd"! Sqvsem druga mi e
istoriata...
J.
Stephan Nikolov
<7csvn2$acu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> i ne samo , che ne ni spasi ot Bosna
>
>
>> a mi podgotvi za edna Bosna.
>
>
Tova, che Bosna ne stana v Bylgarija, e zaradi drugo. No s
protivopostavjaneto, koeto toj nalozhi, neshtata bjaha trygnali natam.
Ja si spomni, kakvo beshe prez 1990 g, kogato Turcite VYZ OSNOVA NA NEGOVITE
DEJSTVIJA, poiskaha etnicheska partija i "garancii" che tova njama da se
povtori. Nedej preuvelichava broja na ekskurziantite.
>Imame jiv primer kakvo stava, kogato niakoy niama vqzmojnost da resgira
taka
>bqrzo i efikastno - ne che sa mogli da go napraviat po tozi nachin, de! Za
>shtastie - v BG mojeshe.
>
>> Ne samo beshe losh, ama i nekadyren v tozi sluchaj.
>
>Ne. V NIKOY sluchay ne beshe nekadqren! Otlichno kqdqren za celite na
kastata
>si. I v sluchaya - sluchayno beshe polezen i za vsichki.
>
>Povtariam - "priemlivi zagubi". Jertvash malkoto, za da ne zagubish
goliamoto.
>
Tova beshe argumentyt na BSP prez 1990-1992 g. Toj syszdade etnichesko
naprezhenie v Bylgarija, vmesto da premahne iztochnika mu.
>> Edinstvenoto, za koeto posluzhi beshe da si zadyrzhi lichnata vlast
sresgtu
>> VYTRESHNATA PARTIJNA KONKURENCIJA za oshte njakolko godini.
>
>I tva ne! Tochno tozi sluchay go kapichna! Moje da se kaje, che se
"pojertva"
>za naroda si!!! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
>Tochno zaradi nego uspiaha da go hqrzulnat - i mu podliaha voda pred krayno
>naivnia Gorbachov, koyto ne go traeshe, zashtoto ne uspia da go opoznae
>dostatqchno. Polqga se po tqpovatia mu i neskoposan vid. I ne razbra, che
kat
>kapichne Tato - shte zagubi i ciala BG. Nito tqpacite, det go kapichnaha -
>razbraha. A kat se usetiha - veche beshe mnogo kqsno - za kqsmet na vsichki
>nas! Zatova vinagi kazvam, che "svobodata" v BG beshe sluchayno poluchena,
a
>ne izvoyuvana ili spechelena. Ili shte kajesh, che niakoy ya specheli????
>Niakoy ya izvoyuva??? :)))))))))) Ne! Rezultat na glupava greshka na lakomi
>dushici!
>
O ne..... Gorbachov ne beshe tolkova naiven, kolkoto si mislish. TJ pokaza,
tochno po vremeto na Gorbachov, che bi zhertval syvetskoto vlijanie, za da
zapazi vlastta si. Pogledni memoarite i na dvamata: neprikrita neprijazyn.
Prosto Gorbachov beshe reshil da go smeni, po nachina, po kojto se otyrva ot
Gajdar Aliev i raznite drugi junaci ot starata gvardija. I togava pochna
igrata na Lukanov i drugite "progresivni" v Bylgarija. Te dadoha garanciite
na Gorbachov, che shte sledvat novata linija (polozhenieto sled XX kongres
na KPSS i Aprilskija -plenum, ne e dosta razlichno ot polozhenieto s
Perestrojkata i proslovutija Noemvrijski plenum).
A kogato iskash da zapazish vlastta si, ti tyrsish formula za obedinenie na
max. broj poddyrzhnici, kakto TJ napravi: za celta toj razigra "nacionalnata
karta", kakto i Chaushesku napravi v Rumynija, kakto i Tito predi tova, che
i Miloshevich po kysno. Pokazatelna e rechta pred Profsyjuzite: za
prestrojkata: shte se ogledame, shte se oslushame i .....
Taka kazvash: perestrojkata e po-malko vazhna ot nacionalnite interesi. Eto
az sym patriot.
Gorbachov iskashe da se otyrve ot TJ, mnogo po-rano ot 1988-9.
Tova ne mo'sh li go razbra.
>
>
>Az TVA go razbiraaaam! No prosto ne e istina! Taka vijdate VIE kartinkata!
>Shtot gledate ot nisko. A men mi omrqzna da vi povdigam za ptichi pogled
>:(((((
>
A ti gledash ot svojata kambanarija, kato se zalygvash che uslovijata na
Balkanite sa podobni s onezi ot blizkija iztok. A za tipa informacija, veche
si prikazvahme.
SN
trust...@my-dejanews.com
Ha, somebody was complaining about people being anonymous, well I decided to
reveal my name and stuff, it's not fair to write so much and stay anonymous.
I was reluctant at first because there is one person from the group who knows
me and I was't sure how he was going to react to all my spiritual discussions
and whom else it would reach here in Ames, but hey, who cares? It's a free
country, isn't it?
Lili/Vessie
Vesselina Ivanova
kogato se izkazvat otkroveni mnenia. Ta za tsigankite pred
Sheraton. Posledniat pqt kogato si biah v BG i minah ottam, edna mi
kaza:"dai pari, shte ti kaja bqdeshteto. Az i kazah:"mersi, no ne me
interesuva. Bre kato se vpregna tazi jena i zapochna da me proklina, che
shte mi napravi magia ako ne i izpolzvam uslugite:)))"Ha, tova e siguren
znak, che rabotata i ne e chista, i che e tolkova dalech ot vsiakakvi
tam duhovni vqzvisyavania. Ta tova si e blackmailing i to izpolzvaiki
razni sili i powers deto e po-dobre da bqdat ostaveni na spokoistvie.
Za hora , koito vijdat v bqdeshteto i minaloto, poznavam takiva i te sa
na razlichni niva po sposobnost da otgatvat. Zatova predi vreme dadoh za
primer Vanga, zashtoto maika mi i baba mi sa imali lichen opit s neia i
tia obshto vzeto mu e spasila jivota na bashta mi, zashtoto mu e bila
postavena neviarna diagnoza ot kompetentni lekari v III-ta gradska
bolnitsa v Sofia (sqrdechnata bolnitsa kqdeto maika mi raboti dosta
vreme) i e shtyal da si otide za ednoto chudo. Ta istinata e, che Vanga
mu e postavila viarnata diagnoza (riadka i neizvestna bolest,
prilichashta na rak, sarkoidoza) i go e spasila ot oblqchvane, koeto predizvikva
smqrt u bolni ot sarkoidoza. Povecheto psychics i clayrvoyants vijdat,
da rechem 75% ot istinata i ostanaloto im ubyagva, ili ne im se dava. V
takqv sluchai dobre e ako si go priznayat i kajat, che ne znayat,
zashtoto inache shte si izmisliat niakakvi nebivalitsi i nikogo v nishto
niama da ubediat. No spored men tova go ima u vseki chovek, ne vi li se
e sluchvalo da predchuvstvuvate neshto ili da go "vidite"? Ili da znaete
za neshto, koeto stava v momenta i e dalech ot vas po razstoianie?
No poznavam i drugi hora, koito sa vijdali neshta ot bqdeshteto i
minalto. Ne znam, obache kolko ot tiah biha se sqglasili na
"eksperiment". Zashtoto tezi neshta ne sa za izvajdane na pokaz i za
paradirane, pqk i za kakvo mu e na niakoi da znae minaloto i bqdeshteto,
nai-hubavo e da cherpi ot iztochnika, koito e ... da ne se povtariam.
Za tezi psychics s 900 numbers ne znam, mnogo ot tiah sa profesionalni
sharlatani, men ako pitate, i dobri psiholozi. A drug e vqprosqt za
"prodavane" na tezi "uslugi" i to kogato charge-vat suma ti pari za
sqmnitelni istini. Viarno, che vsichko triabva da se zaplashta na tozi
sviat, no nai-hubavoto v jivota e bezlatno:)) Tuka mi napirat razni
po-otvlecheni misli, no triabva da biagam i gi ostavia za drug pqt.
L.
--
Vesselina Ivanova
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology
Iowa State University
viva...@iastate.edu
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Stephan Nikolov" <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> In other words,
> should the Faith organise a religion or the religion is to keep the Faith
> down-to-earth.....
> In the second case, I think, we loose our divinity.
>
> SN
Zavisi kakvo vlaga chovek v dumata religia. Ako e v smisql na organizirana
religia, vinagi svqrzana s politikata, tova si e samata istina. Tia napravo
utrepva duha:( A ako se misli za religia kato vrqzka na choveka s Visheto si
Nachalo :) to tuka mi se shte da tsitiram edin mqdqr chovek, kogoto poznavam:
"What is genuine religion? Religion is an individual experience. It is a
realization. No man can say exactly what beauty is. It is an experience based
upon a relation between things and individual intelligence. Beauty is a joy
springing up out of that relation. Beauty is a step toward reality. In essence
beauty is a form of love. It is a ray of light from the infinite heart of
things. So is religion. It is a light.It is love. It is joy. True religion
exists only when the soul finds joy in the infinite..."
L./V.
Stephan Nikolov
>Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>> Galina,
>> Forget religion and give in Faith.
>>
>
>both were implicit and I think not exclusivist? WHo knows the intent of
God in
>the possible facilitation of buddhists, for example. Should we judge the
intent
>of God? We all only go on faith with what we find natural to believe,
after
>all. FOr after everything, we are each and everyone, at our passing from
this
>life, essentially and entirely alone.
>
Well, I thought we agreed how dangerous for one's potential is Faith tied to
religion.
Faith does not pressupose judging God. It requires to sail your sould to God
.
You must surrender and let the Holy Spirit in you.
SN
Stephan Nikolov
<7curr6$7jn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7cqsio$r74$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Zavisi kakvo vlaga chovek v dumata religia. Ako e v smisql na organizirana
>religia, vinagi svqrzana s politikata, tova si e samata istina. Tia napravo
>utrepva duha:( A ako se misli za religia kato vrqzka na choveka s Visheto
si
>Nachalo :) to tuka mi se shte da tsitiram edin mqdqr chovek, kogoto
poznavam:
>
>"What is genuine religion? Religion is an individual experience. It is a
>realization. No man can say exactly what beauty is. It is an experience
based
>upon a relation between things and individual intelligence. Beauty is a joy
>springing up out of that relation. Beauty is a step toward reality. In
essence
>beauty is a form of love. It is a ray of light from the infinite heart of
>things. So is religion. It is a light.It is love. It is joy. True religion
>exists only when the soul finds joy in the infinite..."
>
po - gornijat
paragraf me kara da mislja, che tam pod religija se razbira onova, koeto az
pyk za sebe si naricham vjara.
Zashtoto za men vjarata e systojanie na slivane, ne to ne e i slivane...
prelivane s vechnostta, kydeo chovek stava vsichko. Religijta e podgotovkata
za tova systojanie, spored men.
Tj si e poredicata ot obredi,tja predava formata, i kasae setivata poveche
otkolkoto formata i useshtaneto na duha.
Ne che tja ne e vazhna. Vazhna si e religijata. Samo deto tja ima onazi,
podgotvitelnata rolja.
SN
sp...@erols.com
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
Yes, we are all temples of the Holy Spirit, with greater or lesser welcoming
space but we are not Cathari
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Stephan Nikolov" <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> >Zavisi kakvo vlaga chovek v dumata religia.
> >"What is genuine religion? Religion is an individual experience. True
religion
> >exists only when the soul finds joy in the infinite..."
> Samo che men me pritesnjava, che tozi mydyr chovek ne govori za vjara A i
> po - gornijat
> paragraf me kara da mislja, che tam pod religija se razbira onova, koeto az
> pyk za sebe si naricham vjara.
> Zashtoto za men vjarata e systojanie na slivane, ne to ne e i slivane...
> prelivane s vechnostta, kydeo chovek stava vsichko. Religijta e podgotovkata
> za tova systojanie, spored men.
> Tj si e poredicata ot obredi,tja predava formata, i kasae setivata poveche
> otkolkoto formata i useshtaneto na duha.
> Ne che tja ne e vazhna. Vazhna si e religijata. Samo deto tja ima onazi,
> podgotvitelnata rolja.
> SN
Ami yavno e taka, no vsqshnost ima li znachenie. Za men lichno e po-vajen
smisqla otkolkoto dumite. Samo shte napravya edno razgranichenie, koeto
lichno za men ima znachenie, i tova e razlikata mejdu vyara i realization (
dali shte e realizatsia na bqlgarski, ili osqznavane). Realization e stqpka
po-nagore, po-skoro sqs smisql na znanie.
Stephan Nikolov
<7d1l6e$e7d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>Ami yavno e taka, no vsqshnost ima li znachenie. Za men lichno e po-vajen
>smisqla otkolkoto dumite. Samo shte napravya edno razgranichenie, koeto
>lichno za men ima znachenie, i tova e razlikata mejdu vyara i realization (
>dali shte e realizatsia na bqlgarski, ili osqznavane). Realization e stqpka
>po-nagore, po-skoro sqs smisql na znanie.
>
>L./V.
>
Za men ima znachenie, ako i da izglezhdam drebnav. Kakto ima znachenie
mezhdu znanie e poznanie. Zasgtoto religijata ne mozhe da dovede do
poznanie.
Ima opasnost ot podmenjane na onova slivane, za koeto govorih, ako se
olanjame na setivata si
, koeto e znanieto samo po sebe si.
Poznanieto e useshtane, a ne setivnost.
I tuk ide problemyt s Master/Uchitel i kakvoto i da e. Zashtoto ako e samo
edin chovek, kojto znae tehnikite na ekstaza, ne struva. Te mogat da se
postignat s drogi, koito da napravjat taka che da useshtame vsichko(bolka,
tyga, i t.n.). Govorja hipotetichno, razbira se.
Znachi stava duma za neshto razlichno, koeto ne mozhe da se podpravi - koeto
te kara da "pravish chudesa" i da hodish po vodata, a ne samo da si
mislish che go pravish. Nadjavam se, che me razbirate za kakvo govorja.
Zashtoto syl umoren ot prodavachi na vjara, koito vsyshtnost mi predlagat
religii.
SN
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Stephan Nikolov" <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7d1l6e$e7d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >Ami yavno e taka, no vsqshnost ima li znachenie. Za men lichno e po-vajen
> >smisqla otkolkoto dumite. Samo shte napravya edno razgranichenie, koeto
> >lichno za men ima znachenie, i tova e razlikata mejdu vyara i realization (
> >dali shte e realizatsia na bqlgarski, ili osqznavane). Realization e stqpka
> >po-nagore, po-skoro sqs smisql na znanie.
> >
> >L./V.
> >
>
> Za men ima znachenie, ako i da izglezhdam drebnav. Kakto ima znachenie
> mezhdu znanie e poznanie. Zasgtoto religijata ne mozhe da dovede do
> poznanie.
> Ima opasnost ot podmenjane na onova slivane, za koeto govorih, ako se
> olanjame na setivata si
> , koeto e znanieto samo po sebe si.
> Poznanieto e useshtane, a ne setivnost.
Ami da, nali za tova govorihme s Ivan predi, za tova kak setivata ne mogat da
dadat istinsko znanie, zashtoto setivata (ili pone tezi ochi, nos i t.n.)
imat ogranichenia, kato ured s niska razgranichitelna sposobnost. Taka che za
tova niama nedorazumenie tuk. Nedorazumenieto e glavno pak v tova kakvo
vlagame v dumite. Az razbiram, che v dumata religia vie vlagate smisql na
rituali, tseremonii, koito ne davat nishto sqshtestveno otvqd formata, a daje
i mogat da zatsiklyat choveka i da go obvqrjat sqs suma ti predrazsqdqtsi i
privqrzanost kqm formi, koito sa prazni po sqshtestvo. Taka li e ili pak ne
sqm dorazbrala?
> I tuk ide problemyt s Master/Uchitel i kakvoto i da e. Zashtoto ako e samo
> edin chovek, kojto znae tehnikite na ekstaza, ne struva. Te mogat da se
> postignat s drogi, koito da napravjat taka che da useshtame vsichko(bolka,
> tyga, i t.n.). Govorja hipotetichno, razbira se.
Zashto da e samo edin chovek, koito da znae tehnikite i pr.? Samo che
naistina li ne vyarvate, che ima takiva hora? I ako da predpolojim, che
viarvate, mislite li, che hste e izlishno da se "vzeme malko opit" ot tiah? A
za drogite e tsyala druga istoria, sqsvem ne bezopasna, obache.
> Znachi stava duma za neshto razlichno, koeto ne mozhe da se podpravi - koeto
> te kara da "pravish chudesa" i da hodish po vodata, a ne samo da si
> mislish che go pravish. Nadjavam se, che me razbirate za kakvo govorja.
> Zashtoto syl umoren ot prodavachi na vjara, koito vsyshtnost mi predlagat
> religii.
Da, za sqjalenie, e pqlno s "prodavachi na vyara" navsiakqde, takiva napqlno
obezsmisliat poniatieto duhoven uchitel. Trudno se "namira" takqv uchitel, da
ne kajem nevqzmojno. (Ivan taka i ne mi kaza negovoto vijdane za uchitel, ima
da chakam...) Obache ako niakoi hodi po voda, tova oshte ne e dokazatelstvo
za negovoto, kak da kaja, "polojenie na uchitel". Daje publichniat pokaz na
chudesa ne e nepremenno Bogu-ugoden. Ima takiva, koito mogat da sa na dve
mesta ednovremenno i t.n. i sa sqshto prodavachi na vyara, kakto az sqm se
gorchivo uverila:(
Ami ostava si tova, koeto mu e na chovek v dushata, nai-krasivoto, dokato moje
bi edin den shte se poiavi i niakoi istinski uchitel, koi znae. Tova si e Boja
rabota.
Stephan Nikolov
>Ami da, nali za tova govorihme s Ivan predi, za tova kak setivata ne mogat
da
>dadat istinsko znanie, zashtoto setivata (ili pone tezi ochi, nos i t.n.)
>imat ogranichenia, kato ured s niska razgranichitelna sposobnost. Taka che
za
>tova niama nedorazumenie tuk. Nedorazumenieto e glavno pak v tova kakvo
>vlagame v dumite. Az razbiram, che v dumata religia vie vlagate smisql na
>rituali, tseremonii, koito ne davat nishto sqshtestveno otvqd formata, a
daje
>i mogat da zatsiklyat choveka i da go obvqrjat sqs suma ti predrazsqdqtsi i
>privqrzanost kqm formi, koito sa prazni po sqshtestvo. Taka li e ili pak ne
>sqm dorazbrala?
>
>
>> I tuk ide problemyt s Master/Uchitel i kakvoto i da e. Zashtoto ako e
samo
>> edin chovek, kojto znae tehnikite na ekstaza, ne struva. Te mogat da se
>> postignat s drogi, koito da napravjat taka che da useshtame
vsichko(bolka,
>> tyga, i t.n.). Govorja hipotetichno, razbira se.
>
>Zashto da e samo edin chovek, koito da znae tehnikite i pr.? Samo che
>naistina li ne vyarvate, che ima takiva hora? I ako da predpolojim, che
>viarvate, mislite li, che hste e izlishno da se "vzeme malko opit" ot tiah?
A
>za drogite e tsyala druga istoria, sqsvem ne bezopasna, obache.
>
Njamah tova predvid. Prosto izpolzvah dumichkata drugs kato ja pobylgarih.
Predi okolo mesec si sedjah krotko i si prikazvah s edin mladezh ot moja
College,
kojto e farmacist i physiolog. Ta toj mi objasnjavashe za drogite, che
teoretichno e vyzmozhno da se syzdade droga, kojato da te nakara da chutvash
onova, koeto izpitvash v religiozen ekstaz.
Az ne sym po drogite, a i neshto ekstazite mi namaljaha naposledyk ;(, ta se
zadylbah v tazi istorija, da go pitam . Beshe interesna lekcija za setivata
i izkustveno predizvikvanite iljuzii.
Razbira se, ne otminahme i klasicheskija sluchaj sys "nevidimata reklama na
koka kola -- edin kadyr na 200, ne go zabeljazvash, ama okoto ti go
registrira). Ta misylta mi, e che religioznite
vodachi ponjakoga pravjat podobni trikcheta, makar i na drugo nivo, ta
trudno se razlichava istinsko ot mente.
>> Znachi stava duma za neshto razlichno, koeto ne mozhe da se podpravi -
koeto
>> te kara da "pravish chudesa" i da hodish po vodata, a ne samo da si
>> mislish che go pravish. Nadjavam se, che me razbirate za kakvo govorja.
>> Zashtoto syl umoren ot prodavachi na vjara, koito vsyshtnost mi predlagat
>> religii.
>
>Da, za sqjalenie, e pqlno s "prodavachi na vyara" navsiakqde, takiva
napqlno
>obezsmisliat poniatieto duhoven uchitel. Trudno se "namira" takqv uchitel,
da
>ne kajem nevqzmojno. (Ivan taka i ne mi kaza negovoto vijdane za uchitel,
ima
>da chakam...) Obache ako niakoi hodi po voda, tova oshte ne e dokazatelstvo
>za negovoto, kak da kaja, "polojenie na uchitel". Daje publichniat pokaz na
>chudesa ne e nepremenno Bogu-ugoden. Ima takiva, koito mogat da sa na dve
>mesta ednovremenno i t.n. i sa sqshto prodavachi na vyara, kakto az sqm se
>gorchivo uverila:(
>
>Ami ostava si tova, koeto mu e na chovek v dushata, nai-krasivoto, dokato
moje
>bi edin den shte se poiavi i niakoi istinski uchitel, koi znae. Tova si e
Boja
>rabota.
>
A, dojdohme si na dumata za dushata. Eto tova iskah Vie da go otvorite na
duma ;)
Shtoto chrez dushata vyrvim vjarata, a chrez vjarata dostigame syshtnostta,
za
kojato si govorite s (G-n) Ivan (Vasilev-Crazy).
Kak da ja objasnim tazi dusha sega? Pyk posle da ja posledvame chrez vjara
kym onazi syshtnost. i kym poznanieto de.
SN
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Stephan Nikolov" <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7d3sms$6pg$1@nnrp
> Njamah tova predvid. Prosto izpolzvah dumichkata drugs kato ja pobylgarih.
> Predi okolo mesec si sedjah krotko i si prikazvah s edin mladezh ot moja
> College,
> kojto e farmacist i physiolog. Ta toj mi objasnjavashe za drogite, che
> teoretichno e vyzmozhno da se syzdade droga, kojato da te nakara da chutvash
> onova, koeto izpitvash v religiozen ekstaz.
> Az ne sym po drogite, a i neshto ekstazite mi namaljaha naposledyk ;(, ta se
> zadylbah v tazi istorija, da go pitam . Beshe interesna lekcija za setivata
> i izkustveno predizvikvanite iljuzii.
> Razbira se, ne otminahme i klasicheskija sluchaj sys "nevidimata reklama na
> koka kola -- edin kadyr na 200, ne go zabeljazvash, ama okoto ti go
> registrira). Ta misylta mi, e che religioznite
> vodachi ponjakoga pravjat podobni trikcheta, makar i na drugo nivo, ta
> trudno se razlichava istinsko ot mente.
> >> Znachi stava duma za neshto razlichno, koeto ne mozhe da se podpravi -
> koeto
> >> te kara da "pravish chudesa" i da hodish po vodata, a ne samo da si
> >> mislish che go pravish.
> >Ami ostava si tova, koeto mu e na chovek v dushata, nai-krasivoto, dokato
> moje
> >bi edin den shte se poiavi i niakoi istinski uchitel, koi znae. Tova si e
> Boja
> >rabota.
> >
> A, dojdohme si na dumata za dushata. Eto tova iskah Vie da go otvorite na
> duma ;)
> Shtoto chrez dushata vyrvim vjarata, a chrez vjarata dostigame syshtnostta,
> za
> kojato si govorite s (G-n) Ivan (Vasilev-Crazy).
> Kak da ja objasnim tazi dusha sega? Pyk posle da ja posledvame chrez vjara
> kym onazi syshtnost. i kym poznanieto de.
> SN
Ami taka mi se pada, kato zadavah tolkova vqprosi predi, sega e moi red da
otgovaryam:(
Tozi vqpros znachi me zakova, ili pone ako sqm go razbrala pravilno (vinagi
ostaviam vratichka za vqzmojno nerazbirane ot moia strana). Ami mnogo
vseobhvaten i truden vqpros ot edna strana, a pqk ot druga iziskvasht
veroiatno mnogo sempql otgovor, tolkova prost, che chovek ne bi go i
zabeliazal.
Kak da ya obyasnim tazu dusha? A kakvo shte kaja sega, pone v tozi moment,
ami nyama dushata nujda ot obyasnenie. Tya e. Sega si mislya, az ne znam
kakvo e dushata, moje bi chuvstvam. Az si predstavyam, che dushata tova sqm
az v bojestvenata si sqshnost, tova, koeto useshta krasotata, radostta,
lyubovta, koiato niama nujda ot informatsia, za da znae, koyato niama nachalo
ili krai. Dushata e svetlina i muzika; dushata e Edinnoto, Ediniat Bog
individualiziran (kak stava tova, ne znam, moje bi trick, kato tozi s Coca
Cola-ta):) Daje kogato stava duma za obshtuvane (v Ima li, ima li), moje bi
dushata nyama nujda ot dumi ili formi za da obshtuva.
A kak se stiga do vyarata i do sqshnostta? Ami ne znam. Niakoi imat vyara,
drugi po-malko. Edin den imam poveche vyara, na sledvashtia po-malko. I
ponyakoga kogato si mislya, che sqm v nai-tqmnata dupka vqzmojna i che veche
nyama kqde po-nadolu da slyaza, izvednqj problyasva svetlina, izpqlva me i
gubya "tejestta" ot misli i chuvstva i togava znam, che znam, che znam, i
nyama sqmnenie. No tova ne stava tolkova chesto kolkoto bi mi se iskalo, moje
bi dostatqchno kolkoto da krepi vyarata. Kak da se stigne po sobstvena volya,
vseki pqt kogato pojelaesh? Hm, kazvat, che tya e vinagi v nas, tazi
sqshtnost, samo che nasheto vnimanie e nasocheno drugade, (ponyakoga tova,
koeto e nai-blizo e nai-nezabelejimo, Boji trick:)) Tya si igrae na krienitsa
s nas, mai, taka che otvreme-navreme poluchavame "taste" ot neya:) I magiata
e da se nasochi vnimanieto tochno kqm sqshnostta, taka da se fokusira, che
avtomatichno vsichko drugo shte otpadne i Sqshnostta shte zablesti v tsialoto
si ocharovanie:) A kak stava tova? Pqtishta razni, i raznite pqtishta stigat
do razni niva na ...kakva beshe dumata, koyato vie izpolzvate?... slivane.
I neshto drugo, vseki vqrvi sam po tozi pqt, nikoi ne moje da osqznae neshto
vmesto teb. No prisqstvieto na chovek, koito e, da rechem, s po-drugoiache
fokusirano sqznanie, ima efekt vqrhu obkrqjavashtite go. Ami s kakqvto
drujisj, takqv stavash.
Stephan Nikolov
<7d73so$v4b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> A, dojdohme si na dumata za dushata. Eto tova iskah Vie da go otvorite na
>> duma ;)
>> Shtoto chrez dushata vyrvim vjarata, a chrez vjarata dostigame
syshtnostta,
>> za
>> kojato si govorite s (G-n) Ivan (Vasilev-Crazy).
>> Kak da ja objasnim tazi dusha sega? Pyk posle da ja posledvame chrez
vjara
>> kym onazi syshtnost. i kym poznanieto de.
>> SN
>
>Ami taka mi se pada, kato zadavah tolkova vqprosi predi, sega e moi red da
>otgovaryam:(
>
>Tozi vqpros znachi me zakova, ili pone ako sqm go razbrala pravilno (vinagi
>ostaviam vratichka za vqzmojno nerazbirane ot moia strana). Ami mnogo
>vseobhvaten i truden vqpros ot edna strana, a pqk ot druga iziskvasht
>veroiatno mnogo sempql otgovor, tolkova prost, che chovek ne bi go i
>zabeliazal.
A, az pyk si misleh che zym zadal vyprosa taka, che da vi e nuzhno da
otgovorite s 4 dumi ;)
>
>Kak da ya obyasnim tazu dusha? A kakvo shte kaja sega, pone v tozi moment,
>ami nyama dushata nujda ot obyasnenie. Tya e. Sega si mislya, az ne znam
>kakvo e dushata, moje bi chuvstvam. Az si predstavyam, che dushata tova sqm
>az v bojestvenata si sqshnost, tova, koeto useshta krasotata, radostta,
>lyubovta, koiato niama nujda ot informatsia, za da znae, koyato niama
nachalo
>ili krai. Dushata e svetlina i muzika; dushata e Edinnoto, Ediniat Bog
>individualiziran (kak stava tova, ne znam, moje bi trick, kato tozi s Coca
>Cola-ta):) Daje kogato stava duma za obshtuvane (v Ima li, ima li), moje bi
>dushata nyama nujda ot dumi ili formi za da obshtuva.
NADEZHDA ?
>
>A kak se stiga do vyarata i do sqshnostta? Ami ne znam. Niakoi imat vyara,
>drugi po-malko.
Ne, ne .... kak se dostiga do vjarata i chrez neja do syzhtnostta:
VJARAta e i sredstvo, a ne samo tsel.
Edin den imam poveche vyara, na sledvashtia po-malko. I
>ponyakoga kogato si mislya, che sqm v nai-tqmnata dupka vqzmojna i che
veche
>nyama kqde po-nadolu da slyaza, izvednqj problyasva svetlina, izpqlva me i
>gubya "tejestta" ot misli i chuvstva i togava znam, che znam, che znam, i
>nyama sqmnenie. No tova ne stava tolkova chesto kolkoto bi mi se iskalo,
moje
>bi dostatqchno kolkoto da krepi vyarata. Kak da se stigne po sobstvena
volya,
>vseki pqt kogato pojelaesh? Hm, kazvat, che tya e vinagi v nas, tazi
>sqshtnost, samo che nasheto vnimanie e nasocheno drugade, (ponyakoga tova,
>koeto e nai-blizo e nai-nezabelejimo, Boji trick:)) Tya si igrae na
krienitsa
>s nas, mai, taka che otvreme-navreme poluchavame "taste" ot neya:) I
magiata
>e da se nasochi vnimanieto tochno kqm sqshnostta, taka da se fokusira, che
>avtomatichno vsichko drugo shte otpadne i Sqshnostta shte zablesti v
tsialoto
>si ocharovanie:) A kak stava tova? Pqtishta razni, i raznite pqtishta
stigat
>do razni niva na ...kakva beshe dumata, koyato vie izpolzvate?... slivane.
>
LJUBOV
A poznanieto e ..... mydrost....... na grycki SOFIA.
>I neshto drugo, vseki vqrvi sam po tozi pqt, nikoi ne moje da osqznae
neshto
>vmesto teb. No prisqstvieto na chovek, koito e, da rechem, s po-drugoiache
>fokusirano sqznanie, ima efekt vqrhu obkrqjavashtite go. Ami s kakqvto
>drujisj, takqv stavash.
>
Ne e taka: prochetete ralica na P.P. Slavejov... poslednite dva stiha....
pyk posle shte si pogovorim. ;)
zasega nadezhda, Vjara, Ljubov i Sofia (poznanie vi stigat) ;)))
S naj-dobri chuvstva, i molja Vi ne me vemajte za aroganten.... az samo
takyv si izglezhdam.
SN
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
> I like you so much, I'm having a hard time keeping myself from flirting.
Here I was, agonizing over the fact that you didn't write to me and what a
surprise:) The world kind of came to its place again. Hm, I don't know what's
going on. I keep missing some postings, wonder why.
> >And what's your notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like? (Or is
> >like?)
>
> The more revealing answer would be to the question what is a spiritual
> teacher NOT like, at least imo. First, he's not from India or an Asian
> country. Second, he is not old and with a long, white beard. Third, he
> doesn't talk about abstinence, chastity, high morals and kundalini. Forth,
> he doesn't have a bunch of long-haired, wide-eyed groupies sitting in a
> circle around him, absorbing every word of the "swami". ...Well, you get the
> idea.
I would very much like to have a Teacher one-on-one and available, not
withdrawn in some remote corner of the world(like the Himalayas) or in his
all-importance. And yes, I agree with the above NOT's in the sense that he
doesn't have to be those things but he still could be. Why pose restrictions
on the unlimited?
> Love,
> -= Ivan =-
trust...@my-dejanews.com
Dimitar Gueorguiev <d...@acs.bu.edu> wrote:
> Hei Lili ,
>
> Ostavi go Ivan - toi e tarikat; vinagi shte nameri kakvo da ti otgovori
> :)
>
> Studentka li si, ako ne e taina ?
>
> Dimitar
Kakto veche pisah vednqj, Lili mi e kato "psevdonim", mnogo mi haresva imeto,
No vsqshnost se kazvam Vesselina i sqm graduate student in Biochemistry v
Iowa State Univ. Vsqshtnost za nikogo niamashe znachenie kak se kazvam
tochno, osven za niakoi hora, s koito obmenih lichni e-mail-i kato Vesselina,
a ne Lili, i niakoi, koito me poznavat, zashtoto sme v edin i sqsht
Universitet. I drugi, koito me poznavat ot predi da doida v Ames. I mi beshe
dosta neudobno, no si priznah chestno.
L./V.
> -------------------------------
> PhD student
> Aerospace&Mechanical Engineering Dept.
> College of Engineering
> Boston University
> -------------------------------
trust...@my-dejanews.com
"Crazy" <iv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> trust...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> >And what's your notion of what a spiritual teacher might be like? (Or is
> >like?)
>
> The more revealing answer would be to the question what is a spiritual
> teacher NOT like, at least imo. First, he's not from India or an Asian
> country. Second, he is not old and with a long, white beard. Third, he
> doesn't talk about abstinence, chastity, high morals and kundalini. Forth,
> he doesn't have a bunch of long-haired, wide-eyed groupies sitting in a
> circle around him, absorbing every word of the "swami". ...Well, you get the
> idea.
I just thought of some things that I didn't mention when I wrote the reply to
you. At that time I hadn't seen your message so I kept quiet until I saw it, 8
days later.
I was reading a book where kundalini was mentioned and remembered you talking
about it. I was in a certain group of meditating people which I disliked to a
great extent (won't go into details) and the practice they had, involved as I
realized later, raizing of the kundalini and turned out to be very disturbing
for some people. Nobody ever mentioned that, people were led blindly and
turned into similar shadows, molded and, assembled on a production line.I
don't know if the kundalini had anything to do with it... These people had no
discrimination of their own,(in their vast majority) don't know why. About
high morals, the sense of right and wrong is something we are trained in, for
the most part but there seem to be laws in this world which if we break,
we've got to pay the price. And that is as long as we are in this world(or as
long the world is in us). If we are out of it consciously there are no laws
to break. That's how I see it now.
L.