--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:37 PM, llundrub wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > so then upon what fixed medium exactly could pundits be > > working. > > > > > > > > > > Vibrations perceived in humanity about 5000 years ago, > crafted > > on > > > a > > > > > then in vogue hierarchy of Vedic storm God's, etc. ? Of > course > > > you > > > > > can argue that these were great rishis and they went "beyond > > > time". > > > > > But even so, 3000 BCE ain't 2007. We've evolved. Our nervous > > > > systems > > > > > aren't even close. I don't buy the Vedic eternity- tradition > > > > bullshit > > > > > trip any more. Although I did use to enjoy the story. > > > > > > > > > Why not buy the Vedic eternity tradition? Its not something > that > > > can > > > > be proved one way or the other, so just like your feelings for > > > > Maharishi not being in union with God, it comes down to > > intuition, > > > > belief and opinion. So why call it bullshit? > > > > > > > > For Vedic vibration technology to work, it would have to be > > > eternal. > > > > Otherwise it would be relative, and therefore not universal. > > > Perhaps > > > > the dogmas inherent in Buddhism prevent you from seeing the > > > universal > > > > nature of both Maharishi and these Vedic technologies. I can't > > say > > > for > > > > sure, but it certainly seems like a plausible explanation. > > > > > > Plus which, if, as Vaj claims, "our nervous systems > > > have evolved" in the last 5,000 years to the point > > > where vibrations discerned back then no longer "worked" > > > for us, the same should be true of mantras or any > > > other ancient "sacred" sounds. > > > > > > I'm not aware of any research showing that our > > > nervous systems have evolved in any case. > > > > Certainly our nervous systems have evolved during the last 5,000 > > years, just as they evolved during the 5,000 years before that, and > > the 5,000 years before that, on and on, infinitely. > > Well, but I'm not at all sure they've evolved > significantly enough in 5,000 years, at least > biologically speaking, to make a difference in > how we respond to sounds if, as Vaj claims, the > sounds aren't eternal. > > And if they *are* eternal, as you suggest, then > biological evolution wouldn't make any > difference anyway.
Yes. > > But my point is that *if* they're relative and > not eternal, and our nervous systems had evolved > enough to make a difference, it would affect a lot > more than just the Vedic sounds used in yagyas. > You'd have to toss out all the ancient sound- > based systems, including mantras. Yes. Its two different levels, one is the vedic vibrations, tools and techniques closest to the silent source, unaffected, and the other is all the relative spin-outs from those, such as evolution of the nervous system. They are not really in an affective relationship with each other.
