--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], off_world_beings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Suffice to say 'Ved' is a word that is used by a vast culture.
It
> > gives us our word 'wisdom', 'Wizard', ('Witch' may be a version
of
> > it), also 'vision'. Even ' the three wise men' of the Bible, who
> > came from the East, cannot escape. (They are also called ' the
> > Majii' which gives us our word 'magician', and I wonder is it is
> > related to the word 'maya'.)
> > 'Ved' means 'knowledge' or 'wisdom'.
> > If a Vedic culture exists 2,000 years from now, then it may
infuse
> > aspects of our science into it (those that are life-supporting,
> > evolutionary, and useful) and drop the non-useful aspects. It
may
> > call its knowledge collection 'Knowledge', 'Wisdom ', or 'Ved'.
> > Vedic culture (which just means wisdom) assimilates useful
> > knowledge. (like the Borg:-) That is its nature.
> > If aspects of Buddhism are found useful they too will be
> > incorporated. I also assume aspects of the Vedic tradition that
are
> > nto useful to evolution, if such there be, will be dropped.
Perhaps
> > that what Buddha was trying to do, but it happens in a more
natural
> > way, on a human level. Although Maharishi is definately engaged
in
> > trying to re-estblish a system by which to live.
>
>
> If ved is simply "knowledge", and vedic culture a set of social
> systems to collect and perhaps systematize such knowledge, then
most
> "knowledge traditions" would lay claim to doing such -- almost by
> definition. (Deeply) paraphrasing, muslims may say Allah is Truth,
and
> all knowledge that is true is Allah. Replace "Allah" with "Ved",
> "Christ", "Tao", "the Great Father", "Mother Divine", "the holy
> spirit", "Science", etc., and you have the prouncements of most if
not
> all knowledge traditions. Why should "Ved" be given special status
> among all the other "synonyms"? Is doing so simply an ethno-
centric
> type (or parallel sort) of bias?
>
I think this is an interesting line of thinking that this discussion
has meandered to.
Yes, I think it is all Ved ('wisdom'). Maharishi has always said
that also. I agree with him on this. For example, he stated that the
Tao te Ching was one of the Vedas, and indicated Buddha as a
enlightened saint.
Ved is not given special status under the relentless law of nature
that provides that 'that which is closest to the truth lasts
longest'. Nothing can survive the relentless onslaught of that law.
It is wisdom we seek as humans. If it is called 'Ved', or 'Wisdom',
or 'science ' seems unimportant. If it is useful it will last and be
incorporated. We are, in fact, the Borg. We can't get around it.
One last point though. In answer to a question asked of him
regarding the name of the Ved, Maharishi said that 'Ved' was the
name it liked to be called by. So , presumably if that is true, then
the word 'Ved' will last as its nomenclature, otherwise it will be
dropped in favor of something else. Seems unlikely at this point
since we use the word even in English every day.....wise, wisdom,
vision, ved. They are all basically the same word, with different
flavors.
> If Ved are the fundamental impulses of the universe -- then perhaps
> there is a stronger case for preeminance. Except again, adherents
to
> many knowldge traditions will make similar claims -- perhaps along
the
> lines of (but not quoting specific doctrine -- just a speculative
> example) "Christ is the fundamental impulse of the Universe".
Replace
> with "Allah", "Tao" and again, most knowledge traditions would say
you
> are on the right track when you use THEIR word.
It doesn't matter what the claims are. If it is wisdom, it will
(hopefully) last. If it is not, then it will fade. If it is
retained, then it will be assimilated into the greater body of
wisdom of mankind as we evolve , and that body of wisdom will be
given a name.
Right now we call it 'Human knowledge', which is interesting because
even the words 'human' and 'knowledge' both contain a Sanskrit root.
>
> Perhaps the qualification "life-supporting", "useful" or
> "evolutionary" knowledge will provide some insight to solve this
> quandry. But these are all words that CAN be the output of a
system of
> ethics, or tradions of behavior - perhaps suited to a particular
age
> and geography, not necessarily fundamental a priori truths.
>
> Muslim fundamentalists may hold that women not voting or driving is
> evolutionary. Hindus may claim that preventing caste intermarriage
or
> social interaction is evolutionary. How can one tell if a some new
> knowledge is "evolutionary"?
>>>
Yes , we certainly need to have some trust of nature in this
transition phase. Or if one prefers to say , we put our faith in the
only hope for human-kind: A law of nature that provides: "That which
is closest to the truth lasts longest"
Does anyone know this phrase in Sanskrit? or related phrases, and
where it is sourced to?
> snip> At this point, I don't see where "Ved" has a foot up
on "Tao" or
> "Allah" or "Science" as a superior or more basic, fundamental
source
> or expression of knowledge. Perhaps you are not making that claim.
> However, it appears that many of us have at some deep level, have
> accepted such. It shapes our thinking, "gut feelings", world views
and
> interpretative apparatus. >>>
It has a foot up only if it is superior to them. But the truth is
they are all aspects of Wisdom (Ved), therefore the only parts of
Ved that will survive are those that are useful/evolutionary.
I'd be surprised if MANY aspects of Vedic practices survive. For
example, Rama went after Ravana in the Mahabharata, to get his wife
Sita back from the kidnapper Ravena. He suceeded, but as I
understand it then disowned Sita becuase she had been raped by
Ravenna.
If this is the story, (and please correct me anyone if I am wrong
about this) then I say to Rama, "What a sleezebag you are, you have
no place in a future race of Love." [If it is the wrong story then
I'll probably be struck down by lightening today...burnt to a crisp.]
This is just an example. Can anyone think of other examples in the
Vedic culture, that would be hard to see surviving as a continuation
of this current evolutionary phase??. I know some women are killed
if they are raped in some cultures, and in some parts of India a
woman sets herself on fire with her deceased husband, which to the
modern mind seems extremist, but I don't know the effects on the
spiritual plane.
Genetic modification of humans may be a huge downturn in this
evolution, who knows, but we may be unfortunate enough to find out
in our lifetimes. (in fact genetic modification has already occured
through pollution and bad food. Obesity for example is an epidemic
now. I go around and it is AMAZING the number of very fat kids
everywhere. I feel sorry for them, but maybe they will adapt and
bring something new to the race...though right now they have more
chance of dying young and reproducing less)
>
> I am simply asking, why should this be the case? Is the subtle, or
gut
> level, acceptance of "Ved" as more fundamental than other knoweldge
> traditions simply another unsupported bias in our thinking that
should
> be weeded out so that we can thus "see" and interpret the world and
> our experiences more clearly?>>>
I agree with you here. We all re-act to what works for us, or seems
plausible.
The power of feeling of TM and yogic flying for example, for me is
unparalled in my life. Nothing comes remotely close. I don't call
this a 'gut level'. It is like a big wave of water in my room
literally crashing over me and transforming my cells. Very poweful.
Except the water is Silence on some occasions, and Bliss on others.
Not every time of course, but common (I'm not disciplined enough
though, so maybe the law of nature will mean my kind will be weeded
out, or maybe the opposite?)
But it is not the case for everyone regarding Sidhi experiences,
therefore I would assume that if it is useful it will continue, if
not it will recede, maybe come back at a more useful (receptive)
time?.
This is just an example. Any example could be used. If Islam is the
truth then I hope it will prevail. I personally think that if Islam
ever took over the world, the Natural Laws would still take over
that in time. Look at Communist China. After only 50 years of strict
rule, natural tendencies are crashing through that nation, and it is
in a very precarious position now. One that most are not aware of.
Opposite forces pulling in opposite directions. I see this as
nature's natural tendency to always try to go back to a state of
balance, however long it takes. Sama. Samadhi.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
