Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Herbert Benson called The Relaxation Response prayer early in his career, and expressed concerns that publishing positive research on its effects would get him ostracized. And yet, TM isn't really prayer in any normally accepted sense of the word I'm familiar with. Can you pray, not only to an unknown deity, but without being conscious of the fact that you are praying? L
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Mantra of personal god is an interesting phrase. personal god is one way of translating the Yoga Sutra term, ishtadeva, which can also be translated as preferred shining one, which goes back to Maharishi's point about a mantra being an attractive object of attention (which is also taken straight out of the Yoga Sutras).
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
I would say that devas are labels given to fundamental behaviors and connections that enlightened sages perceived as existing within themselves and perceived as external to themselves as well. Of course, most neuroscientists are pretty confident that the only way we can interpret reality is based on how our brain works, so the fact that devas are internal and external at teh same time is an inescapable consequence of having a nervous system connected to physical sense-organs. The world is as we are simply because we can't even conceive of it being differently, and if an alien species with a sufficiently radically different nervous system and sense organs showed up, there wold literally be no ways to communicate about certain things. Just as kittens who have lost the ability to perceive horizontal bars will bump into horizontal bars no matter what, we (and the aliens) would find certain concepts common to the other species, completely incomprehensible. So devas aren't just about physical laws, but social interactions, intuitions, and any/all other aspects of human existence and human perception. My belief is that they are shining ones because they are so fundamental to how enlightened sages perceive things that their existence as the commonality behind various related things like love, or destruction or creation or whatever leaps out at the sage even before the sage can label the thing that they are looking at/thinking about. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Lawson, thanks for the really thorough explanation. I especially like the example of the kittens raised in a unidirectional striped environment then not being able to see the missing direction. Along with that, I'd say that shining ones is simply another reference to how essential to human development is both light and the sense of sight. I also liked your explanation about Dr. Nader's insight about the Ramayana in human physiology. I'll try to find what Ganesh stand for. I think someone asked about that. Maybe just joking but anyway... On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:21 AM, lengli...@cox.net lengli...@cox.net wrote: I would say that devas are labels given to fundamental behaviors and connections that enlightened sages perceived as existing within themselves and perceived as external to themselves as well. Of course, most neuroscientists are pretty confident that the only way we can interpret reality is based on how our brain works, so the fact that devas are internal and external at teh same time is an inescapable consequence of having a nervous system connected to physical sense-organs. The world is as we are simply because we can't even conceive of it being differently, and if an alien species with a sufficiently radically different nervous system and sense organs showed up, there wold literally be no ways to communicate about certain things. Just as kittens who have lost the ability to perceive horizontal bars will bump into horizontal bars no matter what, we (and the aliens) would find certain concepts common to the other species, completely incomprehensible. So devas aren't just about physical laws, but social interactions, intuitions, and any/all other aspects of human existence and human perception. My belief is that they are shining ones because they are so fundamental to how enlightened sages perceive things that their existence as the commonality behind various related things like love, or destruction or creation or whatever leaps out at the sage even before the sage can label the thing that they are looking at/thinking about. L
[FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged within in a Hindu cultural context. Semitic monotheists condemn this idea for the same reason. If we consider the role of yoga, it is apparent that most meditating Westerners are functionally ignorant about the nature, range, depth and complexity of yoga lineages - whether Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Most of them do not know the difference between Vedic, Puranic and Tantric lineages of practice. They also do not understand how these three streams developed and then intertwined into Hindu temple rites. They don't know vidhi from vedi.* (*vidhi is a specific method of puja. Vedi is the altar used in yajña. ) Even more surprising, most swamis and imported yogis are not Pandits, Indologists, or Sanskritists. Very few are formally educated in the yoga traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only trained in asana, pranayam and japa. A little bhakti here, a few Upanishad citations there and om tat sat - I’m a guru. Faced with this, most of us Westerners who meditate are at a disadvantage when presented with
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
As Mark Landau told me, TM is actually a Hindu devotional practice, so I guess it qualifies as japa. Marshy himself is quoted in the old Hermit inthe House book as saying the mantras are the names of gods. He also equates TM with prayer in the book Meditations of Maharish Mahesh Yogi and given the fact that Marshy told hundreds of lies over decades of time, it ain't much of a stretch to know that he lied about the mantras in many ways including in the early days his claiming that each individual received a carefully chosen mantra when in fact he was giving raam to everyone who came to him. On Tue, 3/25/14, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 12:02 PM Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged within in a Hindu
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Are you sure Mark is correct, Michael? Because TM is definitely not japa. I would give far more credence to emptybill (who is by no means a TM TB blissninny) than I would to Mark when it comes to technical knowledge about meditation and mantras. What exactly is Maharishi quoted as saying in Hermit in the House? I ask because in Beacon Light of the Himalayas, he says the bija mantras are the mantras of personal gods, not the names of personal gods. But TM critics tend to overlook that distinction. As Mark Landau told me, TM is actually a Hindu devotional practice, so I guess it qualifies as japa. Marshy himself is quoted in the old Hermit inthe House book as saying the mantras are the names of gods. He also equates TM with prayer in the book Meditations of Maharish Mahesh Yogi and given the fact that Marshy told hundreds of lies over decades of time, it ain't much of a stretch to know that he lied about the mantras in many ways including in the early days his claiming that each individual received a carefully chosen mantra when in fact he was giving raam to everyone who came to him. On Tue, 3/25/14, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 12:02 PM Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
its a Hindu devotional practice designed to pull the favor of particular goddesses to the practitioner - call it what you like - the TMO does, so you can call it anything that it is not, as is the TMO's tradition. On Tue, 3/25/14, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 1:37 PM Are you sure Mark is correct, Michael? Because TM is definitely not japa. I would give far more credence to emptybill (who is by no means a TM TB blissninny) than I would to Mark when it comes to technical knowledge about meditation and mantras. What exactly is Maharishi quoted as saying in Hermit in the House? I ask because in Beacon Light of the Himalayas, he says the bija mantras are the mantras of personal gods, not the names of personal gods. But TM critics tend to overlook that distinction. As Mark Landau told me, TM is actually a Hindu devotional practice, so I guess it qualifies as japa. Marshy himself is quoted in the old Hermit inthe House book as saying the mantras are the names of gods. He also equates TM with prayer in the book Meditations of Maharish Mahesh Yogi and given the fact that Marshy told hundreds of lies over decades of time, it ain't much of a stretch to know that he lied about the mantras in many ways including in the early days his claiming that each individual received a carefully chosen mantra when in fact he was giving raam to everyone who came to him. On Tue, 3/25/14, emptybill@... emptybill@... wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 12:02 PM Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19^th and 20^th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in /a priori /conclusions.One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged within in a Hindu cultural context. Semitic monotheists condemn this idea for the same reason. If we consider the role of yoga, it is apparent that most meditating
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Devotional practices such as bhakti are also just tools. The ancient yogis needed a way to explain the laws of nature and the universe (physics) to simple folks. So they used metaphors. I was going to mention this in the thread about quiet time because the mantras really aren't names of Hindu gods but just vibratory sounds that have some effect. The problem I have with TM and the way MMY went about the teaching was hiding so much of what was behind it and the fact that the beej mantras given won't actually work for anyone. It's a much broader science than that. And then there is the profiteering issue which even Charlie Lutes had a problem with back in the day. On 03/25/2014 05:15 AM, Michael Jackson wrote: As Mark Landau told me, TM is actually a Hindu devotional practice, so I guess it qualifies as japa. Marshy himself is quoted in the old Hermit inthe House book as saying the mantras are the names of gods. He also equates TM with prayer in the book Meditations of Maharish Mahesh Yogi and given the fact that Marshy told hundreds of lies over decades of time, it ain't much of a stretch to know that he lied about the mantras in many ways including in the early days his claiming that each individual received a carefully chosen mantra when in fact he was giving raam to everyone who came to him.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
emptybill, thank you for being so generous with your knowledge and time. It's a good day when I learn something new. Lots of knowledge here that's new for me so a really good day! On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 7:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged within in a Hindu cultural context. Semitic monotheists condemn this idea for the same reason. If we consider the role of yoga, it is apparent that most meditating Westerners are functionally ignorant about the nature, range, depth and complexity of yoga lineages - whether Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Most of them do not know the difference between Vedic, Puranic and Tantric lineages of practice. They also do not understand how these three streams developed and then intertwined into Hindu temple rites. They don't know vidhi from vedi.* (*vidhi is a specific method of puja. Vedi is the altar used in yajña. ) Even more surprising, most swamis and imported yogis are not Pandits, Indologists, or Sanskritists. Very few are formally educated in the yoga traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Thanks for this noozguru. Actually I've been feeling the kapha a lot the last week or so, sort of heavy and lethargic. I'll try this and also avoiding any heavy foods. I guess the almond butter will have to wait til December! On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:53 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. Can you expand on this a bit? Maybe say which one is doing what, like is Ganesh representing the second law of thermodynamics or gravity for instance. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantine’s ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
Spring is kapha time according to ayurveda so it may become high. You can counter balance some of that heaviness with a pinch of ginger, cinnamon and a dash of cloves. I take a pinch of that after a meal and it does away with the craving for a desert. The prevailing paradigm for ayurveda is to return to your constitution and not attempt to balance the doshas. On 03/25/2014 09:00 AM, Share Long wrote: Thanks for this noozguru. Actually I've been feeling the kapha a lot the last week or so, sort of heavy and lethargic. I'll try this and also avoiding any heavy foods. I guess the almond butter will have to wait til December! On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:53 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com mailto:emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19^th and 20^th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
BTW noozguru, I somehow stumbled on that metabolic typing test the other day. Overwhelmingly fast metabolism, what they called a protein type. I'm using sprouts as a light protein in this kapha time... On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:32 PM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Spring is kapha time according to ayurveda so it may become high. You can counter balance some of that heaviness with a pinch of ginger, cinnamon and a dash of cloves. I take a pinch of that after a meal and it does away with the craving for a desert. The prevailing paradigm for ayurveda is to return to your constitution and not attempt to balance the doshas. On 03/25/2014 09:00 AM, Share Long wrote: Thanks for this noozguru. Actually I've been feeling the kapha a lot the last week or so, sort of heavy and lethargic. I'll try this and also avoiding any heavy foods. I guess the almond butter will have to wait til December! On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:53 AM, Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
On 3/25/2014 7:02 AM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. In fact, Bill, no informants have posted a definition of mantra. Until they do so, we don't even know if they understand what it is they are attempting to debate. What is mantra? What is the difference between a mantra and a bija mantra? Definition of mantra: A mantra is a quasi-morpheme or a series of quasi-morphemes, or a series of mixed genuine and quasi-morphemes, arranged in conventional patterns, based on codified esoteric traditions, and passed on from one preceptor to one disciple in the course of a prescribed initiation ritual. Note: Keep in mind that a strict definition allows no exceptions, and does not include purpose.
Re: [FairfieldLife] No Mantra will cure willfully arrogant stupidity
I haven't thought about it for some time, but I think at one time at least, I associated the troop of Maruts with clouds or some other phenomenon of nature. And there were other similar connections I made. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Of course there are no such things as Hindu gods. They are metaphors for laws of physics. Can you expand on this a bit? Maybe say which one is doing what, like is Ganesh representing the second law of thermodynamics or gravity for instance. As I have mentioned many times on FFL, this was so beautifully put at a talk given at a performance at a Katakali dance theater in Cochin. I like to call mantras resonance patterns because they resonate with certain areas of the body and cause changes not only in consciousness but also in metabolic functioning. They are indeed as said by the yogi you quote useful tools. I have also provided an example in the terms of the simple beej mantras that are used in ayurveda. The next time folks folks feel a little mentally foggy they should try repeating the mantra hoom or hoong. It's vibration is centered in the area of the brain and will help clear the mind as it is a kapha reducing mantra. On 03/25/2014 05:02 AM, emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@... wrote: Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the meaning of mantras. Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra. These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY, declaring that a mantra is a sound whose effect is known. This argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the Hindu foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess itself as a form of Hindu devotionalism. This devotionalist criticism is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves. Here are some considerations about these claims: SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural context of their listeners. After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity. When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated. Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists
