|
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? ----Beautiful writing. It's nice to hear your voice
again Akasha. Any relation to Vampire Lestat? Actually I think you said
it, all knowledge is actually not experience but merely some changing whim of
the mind. There either is a more salient reality or we as humans are just
a collection of fragmented mental states and a jumble of brainwaves patched
together with some genetic material. If as Sting says, there's a deeper rhythm,
then it prolly adheres within the brain as well such that greater enlightenment
brings greater synchronicity, for instance Sting might be on the radio just now.
But that's too pat. The support for a valid branch of religious knowing should
again be what effect it has on the ethics of its participants and what
ambivalence within it seems to give rise to such vague interpretations that they
can be used to justify anything. Such knowledge isn't wisdom. And
knowledge/Ved/Dao and so on, aren't necessarily wisdom. Vedanta means the end of
Veda. This is why I said, is that vedic too? No, it's the end of
the veda where the veda stops and sits on it's hind legs for a treat. Ever
seen pics of Dattatreya?
The structure of the dharshanas makes it seem like
a ladder each step preceeding the next, but such isn't the case, as if
these are testaments of reality as the term dharshana suggests, because it's
what you seen, so also they occur simultaneously and in tandem and not in
isolation. Therefore Samkya is as valid as Uttaramimansa. But more
importantly one is not separate from these experiencial cognizances.
At any rate, since everything exists in the world
there are no contradictions between things, and even enemies are more similar
than they would care to admit. In fact the only reason two can fight is
because they coexist. That is a tremendous karmic coincidence itself, and shows
that the causal connection is the major factor whereas the fight is just
window dressing. In fact, I bet you that when two fight, the two are really
fighting themselves, as the other, in their own mind, the veracity of
knowing itself should be subject to question due to the fact that even during
fucking two people have a hard time communicating. Communication is difficult,
knowledge is ephemeral, wisdom is hard to come by but like winning a
Grammy. It just feels good. Knowledge is cold, old, and oversold.
Besides again, even though Maharishi says he's a
proponent of the vedas, and claims "The Holy Tradition" (hereafter refererred to
as THT), it doesn't claim him, and his techniques being of the agamas and
nigamas of tantra called Sri, are actually not of the Vedic tradition but of the
experiencial and dharshanic tradition of meditation and mind protection. More on
the other side of vedanta than ice cream. And if Ved doesn't teach how to
make Ice Cream then what sort of sorry Ved is that? Furthermore, I require
someone to show me meditation techniques that work anywhere in the 4 apurushaya
Ved, or even in the subsidiary and close vedangas, Or even in the upangas. Now
I do have theories about the Itihasa, but....
Oh Fuck, what am I talking about I forgot the whole
of Vedic literature was in the body. If the body is the temple then lets
get it on and get veda veda naked.
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
|
- [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ved "Superior" or "... rudra_joe
- [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Ved "Superior" or &... off_world_beings
- Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Ved "Superior" or &... rudra_joe
