--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > > > MMY came to this country BECAUSE India wasn't Vedic any more... > > > > > > For our edification, could you provide us with historical > > > references for the Vedic times you speak of? > > > > Must be the Vedic times you were speaking of when > > you asked, "So how's that reality fit into the 'Vedic > > ideal,' eh?" > > > > You know, 'cause that's what Lawson was responding > > to above. > > > > > You know the > > > ones, the period referred to in a recent TMO Web page as, > > > "...Vedic times, when life was lived in abundance, peace > > > and bliss." > > > > > > As I remember the little literature I've read from > > > supposedly "Vedic times," it's a record of war, petty > > > grievances between the gods and demigods and pretty > > > much constant pleading from the lowly humans down on > > > planet Earth for these gods and demigods to take it > > > easy on them. So I seem to have missed the historical > > > records you are familiar with indicating that such > > > times were indeed a period of "abundance, peace and > > > bliss." > > > > I don't believe Lawson said anything about being > > familiar with historical records indicating this, > > did he? Or did you fantasize that he did? > > > > And if all you remember is a "record of war," > > etc., as you say above, what did you mean when you > > asked how plastic surgery in India fits into the > > "Vedic ideal"? Where did you find this "Vedic > > ideal" that is in such contrast to the tendency > > of Indian movie stars to change their features > > to become more Western? > > > > I mean, if there is no such ideal, as you appear > > to be suggesting in this post, then your demand > > to know how current Indian practice fits with > > this nonexistent ideal in your previous post > > would seem to have been disingenuous. Or perhaps > > just inadvertently nonsensical. > > Or, I could be suggesting that Lawson and most > of the other TMers who throw around the term > "Vedic times" or who talk about what ideal life > will be like when Maharishi and his pundits > bring "Vedic times" to the present don't know > their ass from a hole in the ground.
In other words, your whole series of questions about "historical documentation" was disingenuous, as was your question about whether plastic surgery was compatible with the "Vedic ideal." Just as I suggested. > The ONLY thing they know "They" who? about "Vedic times" is > that Maharishi told them they were good. Or, "they" could have read or heard this from any number of other sources as well. It's a pretty standard bit of mythology. > I'm poking fun at True Believer Syndrome, Judy, > as reflected in Lawson throwing around the term > 'Vedic' while clearly having no earthly idea > what it was in reality, only what he's been *told* > it was by someone he trusts so completely that > he never does any research on the subjects himself. Remember the distinction between "This is what MMY says..." and "What MMY says is true"? Which of these best characterizes what Lawson said? > You seem to be positioning yourself as someone > who knows more than just the stuff *you* were told > by Maharishi about "Vedic times." What did I say that suggested I was "positioning" myself in this manner? Please cite it in the quote from my post (unless, of course, you're fantasizing again). I'll tell you one thing I *do* know: There's a wide range of interpretations among scholars of what went on in earliest Vedic times. It's extremely difficult to distinguish mythology from metaphor from fact in the oldest records, very little in the way of definitive evidence for any particular interpretation. Plus which, many of the interpretations have been heavily influenced historically by politics and national and East/West bias. To suggest that "historical documentation" rules out any "Vedic ideal" is just silly and ignorant.
