--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Rick Archer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > > > If you want to get all esoteric about it, the mantras > > > > are in some sense devas, but then you have to get into > > > > the whole Nama-rupa thing and how Sanskrit syllables > > > > aren't symbolic, like regular language; they don't > > > > *stand for* things, they *are* things. And if you're > > > > going to say mantras are gods, well, you gotta first > > > > believe in gods. I'm a lot happier with "impulses of > > > > creative intelligence," myself. > > > > > > Just a Western phrase Maharishi chose to make a Hindu concept > > > seem more scientific. > > > > Or perhaps not. Perhaps "impulses of creative > > intelligence" is the more accurate description > > for the abstract celestial entities or forces > > which in Hinduism are metaphorically represented > > by colorful gods and goddesses, and which are > > actually aspects of our own consciousness. > > > > Remember that MMY also refers to "devata" as > > "process of knowing," that which connects Knower > > and known, or rather which *creates* what is > > known. The Knower "knows" the known into being, > > devata being the creative agency. > > > > I believe the mythological aspects of religions > > generally are metaphors for highly abstract > > components of reality--of the mechanics of > > consciousness--rather than personal beings. Not > > that they can't take the form of personal beings, > > of course. But their essence is vastly more > > abstract, I think. > > Wonderful explanation. > > But I wonder whether the word "metaphor" is exactly what I would > employ in the above paragraph. To me it denotes something literary > or fictional. There is another word I would rather use, but can't > think of it (I'll know it when I see it). Perhaps "symbols"...but > that still denotes something less than real.
"Metaphor" doesn't have to be either literary or fictional. I'm using it in the sense of a more concrete version of something that's ultimately very abstract. The concrete version isn't less real, it's just less, well, abstract, less subtle. > For example, the few times I have had "flashy" experiences in > meditation, they have comprised what you call mythological aspects > of religion...but they are experienced as very, very real...indeed, > in a way, more real than waking state realities. Sure. But you might also at some point experience the abstractions behind the mythological aspects, and they'd be just as real. There's an exercise that is sometimes taught to cancer patients; they're told to visualize their cancer cells as robbers and their immune system as a troop of policemen, then visualize the policemen going after and capturing the robbers. Somehow that fantasy process actually stimulates the immune system to go after the cancer cells, even though obviously there aren't a lot of little tiny cops and robbers running around in the person's insides. But the concrete metaphor invokes a much more abstract biological process. It would be really difficult to try to visualize the *actual* biological process, but the fantasy visualization is close enough to what really takes place to make it happen. So in a sense it's "fictional," but in another it isn't. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
