--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:24 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Bronte Baxter wrote: > > > > > > > I think it dismisses way too much to reduce the gods to > > qualities > > > > of consciousness. In the sense that we are all just qualities of > > > > consciousness, I suppose you could say that's true. But in the > > > > practical sense, the gods are unique individuals, no different > > that > > > > way than a flesh-and-blood person. They simply exist on a > > dimension > > > > that is vibrating faster than this one and therefore not visible > > to > > > > the eye. > > > > > > > > > Just glancing over it, it smells of TMO reductionism. > > > > Better clean out your nose, Vaj. It's not just a > > TMO notion by any means. > > Nor did I indicate it was.
Well, yes, you did. You said "It smells of TMO reductionism," not "It smells of the reductionism that's been a popular trend since at least Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older." (Not to mention that "reductionism" is a pretty odd term to describe it. Check Mr. Dictionary.) It's been a popular trend since at least > Aurobindo, but possibly a Vaishnavite trend which is much older. I > tend to associate this trend to British raj Vaishnavite trends > though, esp. in regard to westerners. TMO probably takes the cake > though in regards to such distortions. Or not. And of course it may well not be "distortions." The distortion may be the personifications rather than the abstractions. > Restoring the purity of the tradition? LOL, tell it to > someone else. You tell it to someone else, Vaj. I didn't say it, you did.
