Thanks, but I wasn't asking your opinion on Ayurveda, just whether you fancied yourself an acharya and you answered that. ;-)
Ayurveda is something that some of us have studied and I didn't study it under the auspices of TM. It is just biochemistry and nothing mystical about it. But I've noticed over the years that some folks here don't like it because a) it was part of TM and/or b) they had or know people who had bad experiences with it. It's a very deep field and something that indeed western medicine could benefit from. I'm constantly learning new things about it and comparing it with other modalities. So I would certainly not expect you to make any connection with Ayurveda if you haven't studied it especially with some song playing at Starbucks. I gave up on TM long ago as a dead end path. About 11 years ago I made the acquaintance of an Indian tantric who resides locally and he offered to initiate me into his tradition. The techniques I learned were very powerful and satisfied my interest in the tantric tradition and fulfilled what was lacking in the TM path which I describe as "yoga lite." So I am often interested in what traditions people have learned or left, whatever. Take care. On 10/22/2011 03:04 PM, maskedzebra wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu<noozguru@...> wrote: > > Dear Bhairitu, > > "Then I asked Robin in another post if he fancied himself an 'archarya' to > which he never responded which tells me a lot in and of itself." > > It should tell you nothing, Bhairtu: I did not even know what the term meant. > And as for my Vata-Kapha-Pitta proportions, well, once I separated myself > from Maharishi and TM, I separated myself from anything to do with > ayurveda—which, thank Krishna, had not entered into the TM context when I > went out on my own. > > So, then, Bhairitu, my ignoring your post signified nothing more than my > thinking that someone who would assume I knew what an archarya was, and > moreover would write as if Vata, Kapha, and Pitta must have been incorporated > into not just the vocabulary of my life, but constituted something to do with > how I look upon physical and mental health—such a person was perhaps not > someone who would even like to hear my answer. > > I don't intend to judge the worth of ayurveda; I only know that my intimate > and profound experiences physiologically and mentally with the East, more > particularly, with the Veda, makes anything like this—in terms of my > immediate existential reflexes—anathema. I will, for the rest of my life, do > without the influence or contribution of ayurveda, just as I will live out my > life in the chosen absence of anything New Age and spiritual. I am only > interested in first person ontology. I mean, ultimately. [And it all starts > with the idea of God's omnisubjectivity—and that quote from Hopkins that > Pal-Gap appreciated.] > > I consider, then, Bhairitu, the Eastern idea of the Self, Atman, the > Absolute, Enlightenment, pure consciousness, Buddhahood—and the notion of the > perfection of impersonal consciousness—to be an angelic hoax. Not that I > doubt the sincerity of the various Buddhists, TMers, Hindus, Taoists, New Age > spiritualists that I meet in the course of my life. I don't hold to the idea > of Ultimate Truth, much less final 'Liberation'. And I have written too many > words on this forum describing in some detail the why of this extreme > prejudice in me. > > What perhaps (as well as the demands of my own life, and the ascertaining of > the intrinsic worth of a given post pointed in my direction) made me skip > over the faint moral obligation I felt to respond to your post was this > assumed idea that these notions of archarya, Vata, Kapha, Pitta were part of > the bloodstream of every human being who has gone through psychedelics and > then the Eastern gods (most especially TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi). Do you > understand what I am saying, then, Bhairitu? I don't doubt your intelligence > and your wisdom; I only find it surprisingly naive and insensitive of you (a > kind of failure of objectivity about the real world) to draw the conclusion > that these ayurvedic categories necessarily correspond to anything ultimately > true and real in how God created the human being. And as it [ayurveda] > pertains to the evaluation and analysis of the functioning of a human > being—his or her personality. > > I mean here in the West. How many persons on Park Avenue on a given day, if > you interviewed them, would agree that ayurveda occupied the same place in > their understanding of *how to analyze writing style* as they do for you? The > universities that offer courses in creative writing, are there *any* which > have realized their ignorance about how to assess the predilections of their > students writing according to the emphasis of Vata, Kapha,& Pitta? > > I am listening to "Suzanne" by Leonard Cohen as I sit in Starbucks here in > Toronto. And my conclusion is: Ayurvea explains nothing about what is > happening to me as I listen to this song. > > I realize there are persons on FFL with very different religious and > spiritual persuasions; what I find disappointing and cause for regret is > there are persons who can't stand outside of their beliefs, or the world of > spiritual belief in which they exist, in order to see the world that exists > independently of that inner world. For you to assign some significance as you > have for my not answering your question about whether I think of myself an > archarya or not, and then, inside the same context, indicate implicitly the > objectively unquestioned status of ayurveda: well, this, Bhairitu, well, this > *is* significant. > > You seem like a bright and interesting person, with lots to say. But I > recommend that you consider this ayurveda business as an unproven truth in > medicine. And if allopathic medicine assimilates ayurveda on the terms in > which Maharishi and his followers believe it should (because its integrity > has been 'cognized' by Vedic seers), then fine. I will give the matter > another look. But for the time being, I would rather just talk to you > one-on-one eschewing all mention of Vata, Kapha, and Pitta. Because I think > these terms more or less ridiculous inside the mainstream of Western > Civilization—maybe not from a medical point of view; but applied to > understanding human beings the way they express themselves? This for me is > absurd. Not necessarily objectively, Bhairtitu; but considered inside the > context of how we live—and listening to Suzanne—it seems arbitrary and > strained. > > What is much more significant is: what can account for your uncritical > assumption that necessarily everyone on FFL would go along with you in terms > of your belief that these ayurvedic terms are already part of the internal > vocabulary of the very being of all of us. Now *that*, if ayurveda can shed > light on it, would interest me. > > I have found out what archayra means. And I deny as forcibly as I can that I > in any way whatsoever consider myself a spiritual guide or instructor, or > leader of a sect, or even a "highly learned man". I am not a teacher of > reality, in other words, and I would never consider offering my services for > counselling other human beings in the path to Truth. > > Curtis of course has spoken most reasonably on my behalf when it comes to the > finished product of our respective writing. I doubt I could improve on > anything he has said there. I am engaged in a spontaneous, personal, intense > conversation with someone who compels me with his passion and his > intelligence and his integrity. If I thought my posts were subject to > critical analysis on the basis of how carefully and thoroughly they > represented something that has the possibility of being published, I would > have to do re-write after re-write. I do not re-write my posts to Curtis. I > look them over for syntactical howlers; but even then they, when I read them > later, are riddled with errors. > > Suzanne is a much better index of the context within which I write and live > my life, Bhairitu, then anything that comes from the East. > > My idea—always—is to try to get a perspective on my first person ontological > self. As it inevitably express its very personal form of subjectivity. You > might think about your own first person experiential point of view in going > about determining the significance of someone writing within a certain style. > I think it unbelievable that how I go about being who I am is finally > determined on an entirely physical basis—although I find Curtis's > bio-neurological paradigm so much more attractive to me than ayurveda. But > then, I am violently biased, having (mostly my own fault) been catapulted > into a ten year state of blissful hallucination. > > Believe me, Bhairitu, this East versus West thing is still up for grabs. > > > > >> Who says I didn't "appreciate" Curtis and Robin's ramblings? I >> appreciated them as what seemed like long ramblings of blind men >> describing an elephant. My interest was more why would Robin wax on for >> pages over something if he wasn't vata imbalanced? Curtis is a little >> more succinct writer. On a political forum I post on a couple of guys >> have turned a thread or two into their own personal message exchange. >> The last upgrade took away private messaging where they might have >> carried on. Most of us ignore the thread but do wonder why they spend >> so much time and energy on it. >> >> In ayurveda, people who are kapha are often of few words because writing >> takes energy (think Lawson). Pitta people are usually much more >> succinct and to the point and write more than the kapha person. The >> vata person has a roar of ideas going through their heads and writes too >> much and is seldom grounded enough to edit what they wrote. Vata people >> live in their heads and are often amazed at the flow of ideas that they >> have. Some of these people carry notepads around or dictate into the >> smartphone the ideas as they've learned if they don't they'll forget >> them. In the computer field we often found that vata engineers had a >> lot of solutions but never finished them. And David Frawely once wrote >> that some vata people mistake their spaciness for enlightenment. >> >> In communication the more succinct and to the point you are the more you >> communicate with people. I was reading Matt Tiabbi's blog this morning >> and the article how confused Rush Limbaugh is. It was two pages of >> writing but good writing that carries you along. That is good writing. >> With some of the rambles here you begin to realize the author isn't >> saying anything much after three paragraphs and further reading is a >> waste of time. >> >> I recall how verbose movement publications when they didn't need to be. >> It was like "if we write a lot of words people will think we are smart." >> >> Then I asked Robin in another post if he fancied himself an "archarya" >> to which he never responded which tells me a lot in and of itself. Not >> sayin' that Robin isn't experiencing some enlightenment but then I would >> expect most people too have some experience after years of meditation. >> Just because they can't turn lead into gold doesn't mean they aren't >> experiencing enlightenment. :-D >> > > ------------------------------------ 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> 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/
