(snip)
> "Veda" also has a broader definition and that definition is simply
> "knowledge" (it's actually derived from the root "vid",
knowledge),
> as in direct, samadhic knowledge. In that sense it is eternal and
not
> limited to texts bearing the name "Veda". Everyone has access to
> their own "veda" as it were.
Maharishi said: "Knowledge that is in the book remains in the book".
He also said, that Guru Dev, because he had devoted his life to
silence, and had spent about 60 years in silence, in the forests of
India-
That Guru Dev embodied the knowledge that was in the books. He became
the knowledge itself, in living, breathing form.
So, it is not so important, this tradition or that, because they all
have their misconceptions and limitations.
But if you get to the place, as is mentioned above, that "Everyone
has access to
> their own "Veda" as it were",
Then the knowledge is known, directly by the knower.
Then the knower is known, directly by the known and visa versa.
So, the difference in my mind between Maharishi, and Guru Dev, and
some of the rest of all the traditions and the Gurus that represent
them-
It always comes back to consciousness, and how expanded their
consciousness was and is.
It's all about consciousness, first, last and always.
