--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 4/6/05 6:45 PM, Bob Brigante at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > Oh, come on, he liked the incense and the public acclaim? It's
> > ridiculous, he had avoided contact with people just as much as
> > possible for many years (the little book about his life reminds us
> > that for a sage, "solitude is the only blessedness"
> > http://www.kevincarmody.com/vedic/brahmananda.html ), refusing to
> > take the post as Shankaracharya until Maharishi came of age, and 
was
> > available as his disciple.
> > 
> > It could not have been his mission to speak out a lot of Vedic 
wisdom
> > like the founder of his order of monks, Shankara, because Guru Dev
> > spoke very little. His sole mission was to create an emissary to
> > enlighten the householder world. It was unnecessary for Guru Dev 
to
> > say much of anything -- there is already a ton of Vedic 
literature,
> > by Shankara, Vasistha, Vyasa and the other sages -- the need of 
the
> > times was to make available a simple mechanical means of raising
> > one's consciousness without moving into a cave like Guru Dev did
> > (Vedic knowledge without expanded awareness is like having a map
> > without a light, it simply can't be understood), and that's 
exactly
> > what MMY did to pay his gurudakshina (preceptor's fee) to Guru 
Dev.
> > 
> > Bob 
> > http://geocities.com/bbrigante/updates.html
> >  

 
> You may be right Bob, but these are theories. Your opinions. Surely 
you must
> be aware of the distinction between opinion and established fact. 
The thing
> that gets everyone's goat here is that the tone of your expression 
makes it
> sound like you are asserting your opinions as absolute truth. Are 
you really
> as dead sure of things as you appear to be, or is this electronic 
medium
> causing us to misinterpret your tone?

***********

What I am saying is a theory in the sense that evolution is a theory. 
A theory is an explanation that fits the fact situation (in a way 
that creationists' ideas do not). You acknowledge Guru Dev only 
accepting the Shankaracharya seat about the time when MMY graduated 
from college. This meant that Guru Dev only had to expose himself to 
the mud of world for a minimum amount of time (it was obviously Guru 
Dev's preference to stay away from the ignorant and clamorous world), 
just enough time to bring MMY, the educated and English-speaking 
envoy to the entire world that he needed, to his level, and then 
leave this earth.

Now creationist opponents of evolutionary theory say, out of their 
ignorance, that evolution is only a theory, as if some day some 
biologist is going to be able to change the theory into a law. This 
is not going to happen, and there is a similar lack of utility in 
what you are saying about my analysis -- if that gets your goat, or 
anybody else's, that's too bad -- which is about all that biologists 
have to say to creationists. 

If somebody has a competing theory that fits the fact situation of 
Guru Dev's life, and respects Guru Dev's divine status, they can 
express themselves on this list just like me or anybody with internet 
access. The reason why I say Guru Dev's status should be a given, a 
prequisite to any analysis of his life, is that if his divinity is 
not acknowledged, then there is really no sense talking about him at 
all -- he would just be another homeless guy with a beard, and there 
are lots of them here where I live.





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/
 



Reply via email to