-Whatever is written down in the book, no matter where the book comes from or who wrote it or how it was translated; is not the same thing as a living breathing person, who is living what the book is describing. Knowledge in the book is dead, until someone lives the knowledge in the book. This is the attribute that Maharishi, gives most to Guru Dev's role in the scheme of things; that it took someone with that intensity of discipline and seclusion, to reach and live the Unity Consciousness, at a time in the world, when there was a world war happening; quite a contrast, don't you think?
-- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My comments in between. > > > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > t3rinity: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. > > > > Irmeli:I think it is very important to see the distinction: You can > > respect the person, but don't need to agree with or respect all > > aspects of his understanding. > > Yet, if you ridicule his beliefs you show disrespect to the person. If > you say, that his faith in a Guru is the expression of immaturity, you > do exactly this. This is definitely something that is constantly > repeated here. Things like the term 'true blue believer'. What matters > to me is a critic is essential to your life, or if it is just meant to > drag you down. > > > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity: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. > > > > Irmeli: You make far too wide generalisations. Uncle never claimed > > that all religion and God was invented to control people. > > No, Marxism says so. But its exactly parallel to the statements Uncle > made about the authors of prescriptions just protecting their power. > This is for one mind-reading, as if he could know their motivations, > and second its from a purely materialistic perspective. > > > He said > > that holy scriptures are a mixture of deep wisdom and the limited > > understanding of the culture, where the sages who wrote the texts > > lived. > > Sorry, he was more specific than these generalizations. > > > > > > You seem to be of the opinion that these MEN who wrote > > > > these things were doing so for only pure motives. > > > > t3rinity: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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity:You don't have to believe in this kind of approach, but > you > > should respect the feelings of those who do so. > > > > Irmeli: Are you saying that people who understand things in a > > different way than you should not express that understanding, > because > > people like you get hurt? > > No. If somebody doesn't believe in God and gives reasons, I am not > going to get hurt. But if somebody compares the object of my > veneration with a pile of shit, I get hurt of course. If somebody says > your spouse is ugly and stinking you will not like it. Anything else > is just self-betrayal. > > > Do you think that it is a correct procedure > > not to criticise the fundamentalist muslim terrorists' > interpretation > > of their religion, because their feelings could get so hurt that > they > > might kill you? > > I am in no position to ridicule the object of their veneration, as has > been done in Guantanamou bay recently, but I can of course point out > to them where I think they take a wrong approach. In fact this will be > the better approach. > > > > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity: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. > > > > Irmeli: If one does not believe a scripture to be the revealed word > > of God and gives expression to that understanding, why does it hurt > > your feelings so badly? Have you some doubts yourself? > > No. I haven't said that not believing in the scripture hurts me or > creates doubts. But in order to understand the context of a certain > spiritual behaviour, it is helpful to understand the context of it. To > understand the meaning the Guru has in the Indian systems is necessary > before you judge somebodies behavoiur in this regard. Before you say, > the Guru-system is overcome, you better know the specifics of it. > Otherwise you will be ignorant of the context in which one practises > it. You have to first know about what you critize. > > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity: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. > > > > t3rinity:But they are to other lives. What about respecting peoples > > feelings. > > > > Irmeli: How much do you show respect for Uncle's understanding. > > All respect. I am not saying that he should have a Guru, should > practise Bhakti etc. I am not critizising him for what he practises, > or what he is, but simply for his behavour towards those who love MMY. > > > Although I think your disrespect doesn't hurt his feelings. Why are > > you reading FFL if you get so badly hurt? > > You misunderstand me. I repeat myself to make my point, not to stress > my hurt. But think about what you say here: Does this justify a > behaviour, just to say, then don't meet me if you know you get knocked > down. As I said I am not a TMer, so I am not really personally > concerned. But why should I retain my own POV? You express yours, why > shouldn't I say mine? Actually most people who think like me, do not > come o these boards, and do not point out thier own POV. What's wrong > when I do it and give a larger perspective to what Lawson said. And > after all, I am just expressing my feelings just like everyone here. > > I actually feel that for this kind of attitude I have, we are living > in a hostile cultural millieu. That millieu is okay for society at > large, but it is wrong, because ignorant, for spirituality. Its not > born of an enlightened vision. It works in an ego based society. > > > You surely can find > > elsewhere better groups of people, who share your worldview. > > Ah, thank you. I'm a guest here, and I just have a different opinion > then yours. > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity: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. > > > > Irmeli: I have adopted deep wisdom from the holy scriptures, but > also > > rejected a lot of stuff from those sources. It is an automatic > > process for me. When I give a dog something to eat, part of which > it > > don't like, it very skilfully selects out the part that tastes it > and > > swallows it, and spits out the dubious part. What's the problem > here? > > There is no problem per se. But what your dog dislikes is not bad as > such, it maybe good for somebody else. The other point is, as in any > spiritual path, if you choose - who chooses, and who is in charge? > > > > 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. > > > > t3rinity:Yeah, but just a minute ago you said they did it to > control > > other people. > > > > Irmeli: Again you make false generalisations. > > No, he said that this was put into scriptures to strengthen the power > they have over you, that you do not doubt them. > > > > > 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. > > > > T3rinity: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. 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 should 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. > > > > Irmeli: I hear you saying that expressing a different understanding > > of the issues you consider to be holy is identical with trashing. > > No, this is a generalization you make. The question is what your > understanding is about. If your understanding is about something > relating to the religious behaviour of somebody else without knowing > the deeper spriritual implications of it, like the Gurusystem, or > Bhakti, it can very well be trashing. I am sorry for my poor choice of > words, since I am not english, but I think you know what I mean, > speaking negative, or derogative about spiritual truth, out of > ignorance I guess. > > So if you want to define a new path for the west, do it. But don't say > this is the final truth about spirituality. And don't say that giving > power to ones Guru is dangerous, because its Guru trashing. 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/
