Today, I posted a rational observation of a physiological phenomenon under the thread Experience Query. Almost immediately it drew an email from a chap named ed with and email [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not sure why he felt this email was not worthy of posting on the discussion board for all to see. I want to post it, to see who else is bothered by my ramblings.
Here is the note with my annotations, it begins with a quote from my post: "....I would not read any mystical value in this experience as did Paul on the road to Damascus. That lost soul started a whole religion based on optic nerve inflammation. How many people died because of that mistake?..." Paul didn't start a Religion, many people started studying and following "x". By "x" ed is referring to Josh. Those inclined towards Latin transliterate the Hebrew Yeshua as Jesus but that would indicate to me an inability to understand fundamental rules of text translation. I tend to discount the credibility of texts that have been abused through mistranslation. Paul in fact did start a religion. Before Paul showed up, Josh and his family had begun a Jewish cult. It was not radically different than mainstream Judaism of the period. James and his buddies wear accepted by fellow Jews as well as the Romans. There is no evidence during this period that their little cult was in any kind of jeopardy. If we are to believe his story, Paul had some form of neurological breakdown some 60 years after Josh had a run in with Roman authorities. He managed to reinterpret Josh's very Jewish proclamations and using Roman pagan mythology made some changes. He evoked the Dionysian myth (echoed in the myth of Isis) of a god dying for others sins. This form of martyrdom was foreign to Judaism but is quite common in Greco-Roman theology. In order to make his new religion more palatable he eschewed many of the laws and regulations special to Judaism. Most notably were the Kosher laws. Strangely he cherry picked which laws to keep from the 5 books. Slavery was fine, 10 Commandments good, Bar Mitzvah bad, cleansing rituals bad. It seemed arbitrary but it did help in getting new Roman converts. After all Romans like their pork. I could go on. I could suggest some scholarly texts to back up my conclusions. But I prefer to keep my comments brief. I asked why you used xianity instead of Christianity and now have the complete answer. I should have capitalized Xianity. This was my mistake. I am human. I'm curious, what makes you think that Maharishi didn't have experiences based on disease or malfunctioning physiology? Maybe this entire Enlightenment thing is just a mirage. To me this entire Enlightenment thing is a mirage. Enlightenment is a very unclear concept. It is a word with so many meanings to be utterly useless. I pitch it with other words that have acquired historical meaningless like soul and god. Both loaded words have so many historical meanings to different people they are rendered impractical. To use these words with any accuracy requires paragraphs of explanation to ease the mind of the reader. However Enlightenment as a verb makes some sense to me this way: As I practice yoga I notice changes in my engagement the world around me. As these changes are generally for the better, improved communications, creative solutions, cheerful demeanor and so on, I take this as the verb Enlightenment. It suggest a movement, a vector, a path towards an ideal called Enlightenment. Yes, indeed I recognize all ideals as mirages. But that does not mean they are bad. I refer you to Plato for this line of thinking. He said it better than I could. I am not sure if MMY would agree with me or not. But he is not around anymore to argue the point. So I win. Also, what is your Religious background. An anonymous guy on the internet is asking me a deeply personal question. Why should I respond? Incidentally, where I come from we put question marks at the end of questions. i'll bet that if anyone started to knock it, you'd complain to Rick or label them Anti-this or that. I like Rick. As far as I can see from his posts he is fair and honest. But it would be impossible for me to complain to him about anti-this or that. For me, identity is something I regard with caution. As soon as I identify myself as a "TMer" or "Father" or "Boy Scout Leader" I question the validity of these categories. These identities are at best fiction. They don't exist except as illusion. My guess is that Rick is on the same page as me. Unless someone is identifying with something truly dangerous like White Supremacy, or Child Rapist, I am guessing he has tolerance to allow their words to flow here on FFL. I think the Existentialists, Lutherans, Dualists, and Tupperware Salesmen on this group have nothing to fear from Rick. If you're so inclined, i'm eager for you to respond. ed So happy to fulfill your eagerness. Who are you Ed? Why do you hate "x" enough to provoke me at my private email address rather than in full view of the group? Why can you not conduct your self as a good xtian with love in your heart?
