Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY: lifespan, 8.6.05

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:35:38 -0700

Ek Hum.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: t3rinity
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:57 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: MMY: lifespan, 8.6.05

--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]...>
wrote:
> > > It is clear from this account, directly by the Samhita of the
> > > Veda, that criticism of ones spiritual path, and of ones
> > > spiritual preceptor must be seen as a sin against the gods
> > > themselves, whom the preceptor represents.
> >
> > While I respect both you and your devotional approach
> > to spirituality,

Thank you for the respect, but this what I write here is not about
Bhakti Yoga per se, but it concerns the WHOLE Vedic spiritual
approach, more specifically the Guru Vada, which is the basis of the
whole Indian Tantra.
 
----Maharishi later says the entire shruti and smriti, as well as upangas and darshanas et al are apurushaya. Well, if that's the case then who cares what someone says about any of it, or anyone who espouses it. It just is. Like McDonalds. You can curse the burger as you eat it, or just be lovin it.


> > I think that you have come to believe
> > that scripture was written by God.

Oh, that's really immaterial what I believe. But in order to judge and
respect somebody following a religion or spiritual path, you have to
respect their understanding of the scripture they follow.
 
-------Pah. As if someone can understand the Vedas

> > It wasn't. 

Oh, fuck you don't know. Just say I don't know.
 
--------The Veda were cognized by Rishis. I think this is the point, no?  They are not God, per se....

> > It was written by MEN, and in this case,
> > by the VERY men who are saying that it's a sin to
> > question them or their motives or speak ill of them
> > of do anything other than what they tell you to do.

Gosh, you are doing mindreading from that far away. If anything, that
is a mystic tradition. There is a whole tradition behind this not just
one man or woman. You may just trash the whole tradition and assume
that they were just exploiting innocent people, and disrespect the
experience that has gone into such a tradition. This looks like you
take a modernist sociological approach, like a marxists approach, God
was just invented to control people. But this ignores the experiences
and values of any mystic tradition
 
------------Well, the Vedas clearly talk about trashing the enemy. That's a duality set up by the Rishis.

> > You seem to be of the opinion that these MEN who wrote
> > these things were doing so for only pure motives. 

I assume that they actually experienced what they were talking about,
and which can be still experienced by anybody today. This whole
approach rests on a transfer of spiritual knowledge from teacher to
student, which is so essential in Tantra - for which the Atharva Veda
is the direct ancester btw.
 
---------The Atharva Veda is the most tantric Veda, but it isn't the predecessor of tantra. In all Yajnas a representative of each Veda participates.

> > I
> > make no such assumption.  They were establishing a set
> > of guidelines so that no one would ever think for them-
> > selves and judge spiritual teachers as *people*, for
> > fear that to do so would be a sin.

You don't have to believe in this kind of approach, but you should
respect the feelings of those who do so.
 
-------Coming from someone who doesn't even meditate John, that's a laugh. Here you are a self professed Mormon, who takes his nickname from a Creole seasoning, and then you charge in all indignant. Honestly, what I hear in your voice is alot of braying, but no especial expertise.  If you're a bhakta then just be it. Don't expect the more knowledgable of us to be cowed by your whining.

> Just to temper this somewhat, and explain a little
> bit more what might be easily misconstrued, I have
> *no problem* with those who believe scripture is
> the revealed word of God.  I'm just making the point
> that some people seem to feel that because *they*
> believe this, that others should, too.

Dead wrong Uncl. But you should understand and respect the people who
follow this approach - the Vedic Tradition that is, when you talk to
them
 
-------Would that include the BJP?
 

>
> I don't.  First, I don't believe in a sentient God,
> one who has thoughts that could be written down.
> Second, although I easily accept the possibility of
> lesser "gods" or devas, I give them no more credence
> and pay no more attention to them than I would a
> fellow human being.

That maybe so for you, but its different for others. You basically
have the same problem like all western intellectuals of the 68
generation have. It's a cult about ego and I, and the worst thing for
those people is to give control of the I away. Therefore the rejection
of the Guru system.

> They are interesting, but not
> much of relevance to my life. 

But they are to other lifes. What about respecting peoples feelings.
 
------Don't be such a pussy! For Gods sake Man!

> And it's not just the
> Hindu or Western scriptures; I feel exactly the same
> way about the canon of Buddhism.
>
> I tend to regard scripture as literature. 

You can do so. You are being very selective in this, as you have
adopted, consciously or unconsciously many items of these systems in
you personal beliefsystem. You may not be aware that thsese quotes of
teachers or scriptures you respect have outgrown these very traditions
you reject.
 
------This didn't make sense. Actually Buddhism has influenced Hinduism more than the average Hindu will ever realize.

> I fully
> believe that some scripture is *inspired* literature,
> and that some of it was inspired in men who were fully
> enlightened and writing their visions down for the
> general betterment of humanity, as an act of service.

Yeah, but just a minute ago you said they did it to control other
people.

> At the same time, I believe that some of it very much
> reflected the prejudices and the assumptions of the
> time in which it was written, and the prejudices and
> the assumptions and the particular path of the enlight-
> ened person who wrote it down.

That maybe. I am also against the caste system which is propounded by
the Gita and the Vedas, but this is a social structure, which has
nothing to do with spirituality.
 
-------Actually it has everything to do with spirituality, as spirituality cannot be seen so it must manifest into action.
 
 
 
Yet with things that are essentially
relating to the process of acquiring spiritual knowldege it's really a
different matter, and we shouldn't adopt materialistic measures to
judge them. In reality you are trashing Bhakti and Guruvada which form
essential ingredients of any Indian tantric path, as if they were a
sign of spiritual adolescencse. Thats clear from your answer to Lawson
I am not saying you shpould adopt it, I am just saying you should stop
trashing it. And I am simply sharing what I know about it - for you to
consider as a background. I am not saying you should swap flags.
 
 
--------Actually the Naths are not Guru centric. There are other non-guru paths as well. John you're no fucking genius. Give us a break and go back to whining at a.m.t. Pussy.



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

Reply via email to