[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't. Thanks for your thoughts Turq. I lean towards TM because that is what I know. I don't even begin to know how to vet other techniques. Or I could continue along the same, settling my mind with activity. With your background this program would be very easy to vet Ruth. http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/index.aspx http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/mbsr/ I owe a debt of gratitude to Stu s2ness for his postings about http://www.insightla.org/. Through their website I was directed to a program in my area. My experience with the course was excellent. I am aware of mindfulness meditation techniques and the Mayo Clinic even has brief online instructions. I am also aware of progressive relaxation techniques. I was thinking more about finding something that might fit my squirrelly nature better, one without sit easily as part of the instruction. But maybe I am lazy or I just don't find it intriguing enough to shop.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Ruth, are you a very visual person? A yantra might work better for you than a mantra in that case. The technique would otherwise be exactly the same. Lemme know. --- ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't. Thanks for your thoughts Turq. I lean towards TM because that is what I know. I don't even begin to know how to vet other techniques. Or I could continue along the same, settling my mind with activity. With your background this program would be very easy to vet Ruth. http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/index.aspx http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/mbsr/ I owe a debt of gratitude to Stu s2ness for his postings about http://www.insightla.org/. Through their website I was directed to a program in my area. My experience with the course was excellent. I am aware of mindfulness meditation techniques and the Mayo Clinic even has brief online instructions. I am also aware of progressive relaxation techniques. I was thinking more about finding something that might fit my squirrelly nature better, one without sit easily as part of the instruction. But maybe I am lazy or I just don't find it intriguing enough to shop. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I am aware of mindfulness meditation techniques and the Mayo Clinic even has brief online instructions. I am also aware of progressive relaxation techniques. I was thinking more about finding something that might fit my squirrelly nature better, one without sit easily as part of the instruction. But maybe I am lazy or I just don't find it intriguing enough to shop. What are you trying to accomplish? If it is enhanced relaxation there are techniques for that. A friend of mine really likes hatha yoga practice because there is a mental benefit but the practice is active yet structured.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, it was Nab something or other who always told me to get a checking! Yes I have rounded (pure hell). I can easily drop back into meditation. But I simply don't much like doing it. In the sense that I feel, oh shit, do I have to sit and meditate again? Or, man, has only 5 minutes past? I'm getting up. The answer to your question is in the way you phrased it. It's an assumption, imprinted by years of TM equating meditation with sitting. They are not equated. I have wondered if it is my nature. I am very very good at focusing in on a problem and working on solutions. I pace. I grimace. I go back and forth with colleagues. I figure something out and I jump up and down. I am a very physical thinker. Stillness and I do not mix well. My only health problem is a lifelong difficulty falling asleep because my mind does not want to quit. Lunesta helps. :) Relaxation is even fairly active for me. A slow swim. Playing the piano. Screwing around on the Internet. So, just sitting is well, hard. I used to think a child's walking mantra was for me. Why not try a walking meditation with your TM mantra? The process of allowing thoughts to settle down is the same, sitting or walking. Or, there are dozens of other meditation tech- niques out there that offer the benefits of allowing the mind to become more settled and focused, but without the necessity of sitting with eyes closed to do it. There are eyes open meditations, there is meditation to music, there are mindfulness techniques that can be practiced anytime, anywhere, and there is Zen walking meditation. Meditation is NOT necessarily sitting with the eyes closed. That's the baby steps version of meditation that was marketed as TM. While it may be applicable to and of benefit to many people, it is NOT the only way to meditate, and other people of other dispositions who do not enjoy sitting passively have benefitted greatly from more active forms of meditation. Without rancor or putdown, the TMO definitions of what meditation is and how it works were incredibly narrow and self-serving. They were descriptions of what they thought happened during one narrow *style* of meditation. There are many styles and forms of meditation, and many of them do NOT involve sitting, or sitting with the eyes closed, or a passive approach to the practice. All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
On May 12, 2008, at 9:04 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: But given a weekend, I could turn your logical perception of reality. I would be up for it as long as I got the no ball gag rule in writing beforehand. Oh yeah, and no gimp masks. Not my style! I'm sure you already know all everything a pseudo scientifically minded dipshit like me would need for such a test. I think this could be proven objectively and long before I need to enter any subjective mental states. I don't doubt I could experience my past lives in detail, (or practically anything else) I'm doubting I actually had them, no matter what I think I experienced. But the unconscious mind is wonderland with or without the cat-O-nine tails. Well with Intrauterine Psychiatric theory you wouldn't have to necessarily maintain a belief in reincarnation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
TurquoiseB wrote: All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't. Barry, I think Ruth just said she is already doing these things, her post just seems to be another excuse for you to bash the Marshy, TM, and other people. What's up with that? You don't seem to have any control, it's like a compulsion or something. Ruth already said she was just screwing around on the Internet. But you seem to be unable to post anything without insinuating that we are all 'brainwashed' or 'self-serving'. I can see why Judy takes you to task so often - you're so incessantly one-up on everyone else. I am very very good at focusing in on a problem and working on solutions. I pace. I grimace. I go back and forth with colleagues. I figure something out and I jump up and down. Why not try a walking meditation with your TM mantra? The process of allowing thoughts to settle down is the same, sitting or walking. Or, there are dozens of other meditation tech- niques out there that offer the benefits of allowing the mind to become more settled and focused, but without the necessity of sitting with eyes closed to do it. There are eyes open meditations, there is meditation to music, there are mindfulness techniques that can be practiced anytime, anywhere, and there is Zen walking meditation. Meditation is NOT necessarily sitting with the eyes closed. That's the baby steps version of meditation that was marketed as TM. While it may be applicable to and of benefit to many people, it is NOT the only way to meditate, and other people of other dispositions who do not enjoy sitting passively have benefitted greatly from more active forms of meditation. Without rancor or putdown, the TMO definitions of what meditation is and how it works were incredibly narrow and self-serving. They were descriptions of what they thought happened during one narrow *style* of meditation. There are many styles and forms of meditation, and many of them do NOT involve sitting, or sitting with the eyes closed, or a passive approach to the practice.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the delicious irony of me recommending checking! But I think Maharishi was an excellent meditation teacher so I wouldn't rule it out if you know someone) It feels nice to not shut out meditation as an option for my life. I don't know how long I will stick with it, but I could imagine doing it for the rest of my life, at least occasionally. But I meditated twice today again so I seem to be voting with my ass, it finds the seat! O'Boy, congratulations; this is so beautiful to read. I have heard others also experience the same spontanous thing during the last 2-3 months. Curtis; I can assure you that you need no checking :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ! I can easily drop back into meditation. But I simply don't much like doing it. In the sense that I feel, oh shit, do I have to sit and meditate again? Or, man, has only 5 minutes past? I'm getting up. In this case a checking could be of help. Sometimes we are simply not able to just sit and let go. A trained teacher of TM will step by step take responsebility for your meditation and assist you in roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness. Try it ! You might find it very enjoyable :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Curtis wrote: It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. Turq wrote: Maharishi was trolling for elitists in this early book, and obviously found them. Jim wrote: I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind. This just outrageous! Curtis read the little book 'years before he started TM' and only an idiot wouldn't be knowing anything about Hinduism before joining a Hindu cult and trying to spread Vedic religion around the planet. NOW Curtis wnats to puke, after what, fifty years of telling fibs all the country about the Vedic religion? Come on, Curtis, do you think we're all idiots too? You and Turq need to get a grip! Marshy wasn't talking about the corrupted caste system they have in India today - he was talking about the ideal system of the division of labor during the Gupta Age. How many times do you have to be told that the Indian system of Varnashramadharma is NOT based on skin color? South Asia has always been a mix of Caucasians, Dravidians, and Micronesians. You two are insulting our intelligence. Nobody here or in India, not the Marshy or SBS have been promoting racism. Not Gandhi, Ramakrishna, Ramana, Vivekananda nor Yoganananda, Krishnamurti or anyone else that I know of. You two need shut the fuck up!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't. Thanks for your thoughts Turq. I lean towards TM because that is what I know. I don't even begin to know how to vet other techniques. Or I could continue along the same, settling my mind with activity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: ! I can easily drop back into meditation. But I simply don't much like doing it. In the sense that I feel, oh shit, do I have to sit and meditate again? Or, man, has only 5 minutes past? I'm getting up. In this case a checking could be of help. Sometimes we are simply not able to just sit and let go. A trained teacher of TM will step by step take responsebility for your meditation and assist you in roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness. Try it ! You might find it very enjoyable :-) I don't know about roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness, but I might go for a checking as what is to lose.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
O'Boy, congratulations; this is so beautiful to read. I have heard others also experience the same spontanous thing during the last 2-3 months. For me it has been a longer process of reevaluating meditation outside the context of TM the last year, as well as so much interaction with people here. The period around Maharishi's death was a time for remembering in detail the positive aspects of my years with his teaching, so that probably also softened my perspective on the whole thing. I still believe that he was winging it all, and don't buy the story of his enlightenment or my own. I do value the technique as he taught it. I know there is a whole myth going around about the wave of his death effecting us all magically, and if that story floats someone else's boat as a perspective on why I've given TM another try, that is really none of my business. A true believer who talked with me for more than 5 minutes about how I feel about Maharishi's teaching would be pretty disappointed. But if clinking mantras with you serves as a connection with you Nabby that's cool. Curtis; I can assure you that you need no checking :-) I'm sure I need a check up from the neck up, but just not while I meditate! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: All I'm suggesting is if you are interested in the benefits of meditation, don't be brainwashed by the limitations of the TM approach into think- ing that one has to sit with eyes closed to access those benefits. One doesn't. Thanks for your thoughts Turq. I lean towards TM because that is what I know. I don't even begin to know how to vet other techniques. Or I could continue along the same, settling my mind with activity. With your background this program would be very easy to vet Ruth. http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/index.aspx http://www.umassmed.edu/cfm/mbsr/ I owe a debt of gratitude to Stu s2ness for his postings about http://www.insightla.org/. Through their website I was directed to a program in my area. My experience with the course was excellent.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@ wrote: ! I can easily drop back into meditation. But I simply don't much like doing it. In the sense that I feel, oh shit, do I have to sit and meditate again? Or, man, has only 5 minutes past? I'm getting up. In this case a checking could be of help. Sometimes we are simply not able to just sit and let go. A trained teacher of TM will step by step take responsebility for your meditation and assist you in roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness. Try it ! You might find it very enjoyable :-) I don't know about roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness, but I might go for a checking as what is to lose. You've probably seen this illustration already, but if not, have a gander. To me, phrases like roaming freely in the subtle regions of consciousness, refer to low levels of cortical-thalamic feedback loops (aka thought processes) which allow the brain to slip into restfully-alert mode in global way. Subtle merely means large groups of neurons are in the restful-alert, quiet, connection- optimization mode because thinking, predicated on afore-mentioned feedback loops, is at a low point, so the neurons are left to optimize local connections without distraction from thinking (sensory-feedback-loop processing). Note the horizonal lines that Fred Travis drew through the EEG to emphasize the global nature of the EEG synchrony. Quite cool, because the mechanisms to account for this level of long-distance synchrony in alpha EEG are not obvious. The right hand chart is from EEG of long-term TMers. The left hand chart is from EEG of long-term Buddhist monks practicing a radically different technique. Click on the links below each chart to go to the original article: http://web.mac.com/lawsonenglish/Site/Meditation_EEG.html Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Anyway I've been meditating regularly as a test since February. I am trying to understand its value as a practice without all the beliefs in the system. (at least the ones I am conscious of and have discarded) So far so good, so I guess my magic mantra found me again in this life. At least for now. So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it. Twitchy is actually explained in TM theory in a reasonably (to me) plausible way. TM reduces mental activity, which induces rest, which triggers repair/optimization/normalization mechanisms in the nervous system, which are increases in nervous system activity which are reflected in mental activity. SO your twitchiness is merely a sign that you gained some level of rest and your nervous system has slipped into repair-mode. The degree of discomfort reflects the degree of activation which reflects the degree of damage/stress/etc that is being repaired/normalized. Obviously, if you're too uncomfortable to meditate regularly, you're not getting as much benefit out of your practice as you might, so checking is a good thing. The teacher can discuss strategies for coping with/reducing the discomfort that is discouraging you from meditating in the first place. Lawson (who has had some pretty intense twitchiness over the years)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Curtis wrote: So you are thinking that perhaps the caste system is peripheral to Hindu theology? Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was of the renounced order, so he would have renounced the Hindu system of 'caste'. From what I've read, SBS did not teach on the basis of caste, having rejected it. If the Swami had upheld the 'caste' system he would not have made Marshy his close confidant. The modern 'caste system' in India is based on 'jati', birth circumstances, not skin color. But the word 'caste' when applied to Indian religions is a misnomer. The word caste was introduced by Europeans and pertains to skin color. The original Indian system of division of labor apparently had nothing to do with the color of one's skin. The Indian Constitution has outlawed discrimination, since 1947. I've seen no source which indicates that SBS was opposed to the socialist, secular, democratic principles that founded the Indian nation. If you can find any, please post them so that we can read them. But in fact, racial prejudice was introduced into South Asia by Arayan speaking Caucasians during the Vedic Age. Europeans have been racial profiling since before the age of the Celts, who apparently were one of the first to divide people into groups of priests, warriors, farmers and servants. Even today we have remnants of the 'caste system' in our military which divides members into 'officers' and 'enlisted' men. There is far more racial profiling in America than in India. In America we have labor unions as well as race prejudice. That said, I am totally opposed to racism but it doesn't seem to be a factor in the teaching of SBS. You've already admitted that you know next to nothing about what SBS said about anything. For all you know, SBS may have been totally opposed to all kinds of human color profiling.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
On May 11, 2008, at 11:56 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. Much of what persists today in the west on the caste system are the remnants of British propaganda from colonial rule. If one wants to have a real good idea about what the varnas are and how they were intended should read the recently translated works on the varnas by Alain Danielou. Danielou was one of the students of Swami Karpatri, the man who was not only an important student of Guru Dev, but was the person who was offered the Shank. of the north position first (he instead recommended SBS). Danielou's work shows how Hindu society was organized to preserve certain arts, much like the first labor guilds arose in medieval Europe under various kings as feudalism began to wane, and how it was originally a vast system of universal tolerance. It will undo much of the British propaganda which persists to this very day and have you reconsidering what your western education taught you to believe about the varnas. The Castes (Varnä) MAN is a social animal, which is to say that the human species forms a whole, an organism, whose various cells have their own distinct functions. This is why the different lineages of mankind exist. The qualities and abilities of each improve over the generations so as to form an efficient, harmonious society that is capable of carrying out the role assigned to the human species in the plan of creation. In the same way that the different organs of the body have different functions, even though they originate in cells, so in the plan laid out for the species there exist particular lineages that are more adapted to certain functions and whose abilities, once they are recognized, encouraged, and developed, become hereditary. Each human grouping, each race, each family, must seek to uphold its integrity, to improve its particular speciality, and to play the social role corresponding to its nature, and above all else to preserve and transmit its own special genetic and cultural heritage. Our virtues are to a great extent transmissible, being connected to aspects of character that can be inherited. This is why they must be cultivated and improved so that we may play our role to the full in the brief span of our existence. There is thus for everyone a natural law (Dharmä) that regulates the use and development of mental and physical characteristics, inherited at birth, together with the gift of life itself, so that we may play to the full our part in the evolution of our lineage. Ancestor worship involves above all else the respect and transmission of our double heritage, genetic and cultural. Each being is born unique. In the almost infinite number of possible combinations of the elements that constitute the living being, it is beyond belief that the same arrangement could be repeated, that two beings could be absolutely identical, with the same nature, appearance, function, and station; nevertheless, the human types defined by heredity can be classified. In order to achieve his physical and spiritual destiny, each individual must establish his basis; determine the class to which he belongs, the duties and qualities inherent in that class, and its unique characteristics so that he may make them productive; and, eventually, go beyond them. Everyone must achieve the perfection of a social or exterior role before he can perfect his personal or interior role. The two roles can be vastly different and even contradictory; thus, we see that men from the artisan castes can earn their living in their humble professions and yet can at the same time be philosophers, holy men, and artists before whom kings and Brahmans bow with respect. The circumstances of our birth correspond to the level of development of our own lineage and to the conditions in which we can best progress. Each of the links in the lineage is found at a particular stage of the evolution of that species‑in its youth, maturity, or decline. This is why individuals of different races are not at the same level in their evolution. There is no advantage to anyone in wanting to change one's situation or function, nor in wanting to perform the duties of another. Thus, except in very rare cases, one does not change one's sex, species, race, or caste during one's life. The external hierarchy of beings and things is often the opposite of the interior order. This is the reason why, during the Kali Yuga (the present world age), it is most desirable to be either woman or worker (Shudrä), for through mere humility and devotion to their role or work, these people can attain exterior perfection, which
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Along the lines of Danielou, its my understanding that the Brits' having a class system at the time that was rigid and oppressive transformed the Indian caste system. In contrast, the latter was based on tolerance and respect for castes, and strong self-and family esteem for the excellence of the family's crafts, learning, talents, etc. The Brits used caste as a divisive and culturally crude tool of conquest and control using divide and conquor, stimulating caste tensions and rivalries, and playing/pitting one caste against another. They created caste in their own image of class hatred, loathing and bitterness -- as an exploitive tool. The way to get ahead in this neo-psuedo caste system was to play by British rules. Maharajas were bought off and towed the new party doctrine. And the maharajas supported the priests and clergy who also learned how to play the game. Over 300 years of explotiation, imperialism and racism, the Brits successfully transformed a working system of caste guilds, reasonably benefical to all castes in anagrarian society, into the putrid stew that Curtis critiques. If you are going to damn anyone, I would think the ruling Brit class is far more on target than shanks. I was asking Curtis if he knew SBS full or deeper view on caste. While Dandielou is one voice, he echoes a view that presumably stems from SBS via his student K. That view does not appear exploitive, oppressive, elitist or hate-based. While it may or may not be useful in a post-industrial age, being originally designed for agrarian societies, I think it is fool hardy to adamantly reject all aspects of it based on a horrid use and mutilation of it by the Brits. I suggest that genetics as a basis for indentifying and culturing traits that excel in various professions and careers, and having a strong, tolerant and vibrant flows of cultural and genetic heritage may be a good thing. Albeit there are many exploitive scenarios, as in anything, that could also unfold. However, to equate and damn the British rape and bastard child caste system as that which a deeply spiritual culture and generations progressively cultivated -- is quite short-sighted. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 11, 2008, at 11:56 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. Much of what persists today in the west on the caste system are the remnants of British propaganda from colonial rule. If one wants to have a real good idea about what the varnas are and how they were intended should read the recently translated works on the varnas by Alain Danielou. Danielou was one of the students of Swami Karpatri, the man who was not only an important student of Guru Dev, but was the person who was offered the Shank. of the north position first (he instead recommended SBS). Danielou's work shows how Hindu society was organized to preserve certain arts, much like the first labor guilds arose in medieval Europe under various kings as feudalism began to wane, and how it was originally a vast system of universal tolerance. It will undo much of the British propaganda which persists to this very day and have you reconsidering what your western education taught you to believe about the varnas. The Castes (Varnä) MAN is a social animal, which is to say that the human species forms a whole, an organism, whose various cells have their own distinct functions. This is why the different lineages of mankind exist. The qualities and abilities of each improve over the generations so as to form an efficient, harmonious society that is capable of carrying out the role assigned to the human species in the plan of creation. In the same way that the different organs of the body have different functions, even though they originate in cells, so in the plan laid out for the species there exist particular lineages that are more adapted to certain functions and whose abilities, once they are recognized, encouraged, and developed, become hereditary. Each human grouping, each race, each family, must seek to uphold its integrity, to improve its particular speciality, and to play the social role corresponding to its nature, and above all else to preserve and transmit its own special genetic and cultural heritage. Our virtues are to a great extent transmissible, being connected to aspects of character that can be inherited. This is why they must be cultivated and improved so that we may play our role to the full in the brief span of our existence. There is thus for everyone a natural law (Dharmä) that regulates the use and development of mental and physical characteristics,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Well, I am sure that the traveler wasn't sensitive to modern sensibilities schooled in democratic ideals. Even in modern China and despite Communism's half-assed attempts to get rid of class structure, there is a sharp division among classes--but attempts to make them flexible so as to reward unusual talent or intelligence are increasingly in place. If those systems really are in place, then I really can't object too much about the social classes since it seems that they will, naturally, develop. And then, realistically, who will do all the grunt work for us so we can meditate all day? I only object to them when they are inflexible and that inflexibility is enforced through draconian measures. --- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure.[28] Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[29] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[30] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule. Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[31] where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[31].[32] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[33] The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities.[34] The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the speciality of a particular sub-caste. Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times.[35] Membership in a particular caste, with its associated narrative, history and genealogy, would instill in its members a sense of group accomplishment and cultural pride. Such sentiments are routinely expressed by the Marathas, Rajputs, Iyers, Jats for instance. British Rule The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[37] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[38] During the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Well, there is also the alternative history which doesn't seem to want to go away in spite of denials from the mainstream. According to that history, the Indo-Aryan civilization was the most genocidal in the history of the world, modern times not excepted. And these genocidal missions were all about caste and color. The groupie gopis Krishna's got following him around were, according to these alternative accounts, two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: So you are thinking that perhaps the caste system is peripheral to Hindu theology? Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was of the renounced order, so he would have renounced the Hindu system of 'caste'. From what I've read, SBS did not teach on the basis of caste, having rejected it. If the Swami had upheld the 'caste' system he would not have made Marshy his close confidant. The modern 'caste system' in India is based on 'jati', birth circumstances, not skin color. But the word 'caste' when applied to Indian religions is a misnomer. The word caste was introduced by Europeans and pertains to skin color. The original Indian system of division of labor apparently had nothing to do with the color of one's skin. The Indian Constitution has outlawed discrimination, since 1947. I've seen no source which indicates that SBS was opposed to the socialist, secular, democratic principles that founded the Indian nation. If you can find any, please post them so that we can read them. But in fact, racial prejudice was introduced into South Asia by Arayan speaking Caucasians during the Vedic Age. Europeans have been racial profiling since before the age of the Celts, who apparently were one of the first to divide people into groups of priests, warriors, farmers and servants. Even today we have remnants of the 'caste system' in our military which divides members into 'officers' and 'enlisted' men. There is far more racial profiling in America than in India. In America we have labor unions as well as race prejudice. That said, I am totally opposed to racism but it doesn't seem to be a factor in the teaching of SBS. You've already admitted that you know next to nothing about what SBS said about anything. For all you know, SBS may have been totally opposed to all kinds of human color profiling. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
On May 12, 2008, at 9:47 AM, new.morning wrote: Along the lines of Danielou, its my understanding that the Brits' having a class system at the time that was rigid and oppressive transformed the Indian caste system. In contrast, the latter was based on tolerance and respect for castes, and strong self-and family esteem for the excellence of the family's crafts, learning, talents, etc. The Brits used caste as a divisive and culturally crude tool of conquest and control using divide and conquor, stimulating caste tensions and rivalries, and playing/pitting one caste against another. Yes, this is precisely what I heard as well. In some cases, as with masters of Indian martial arts who could kill with a mere blow, they were sought out and had their hands cut off. They created caste in their own image of class hatred, loathing and bitterness -- as an exploitive tool. The way to get ahead in this neo-psuedo caste system was to play by British rules. Maharajas were bought off and towed the new party doctrine. And the maharajas supported the priests and clergy who also learned how to play the game. Over 300 years of explotiation, imperialism and racism, the Brits successfully transformed a working system of caste guilds, reasonably benefical to all castes in anagrarian society, into the putrid stew that Curtis critiques. If you are going to damn anyone, I would think the ruling Brit class is far more on target than shanks. One of the things we were taught in Intro. to Soc. was that Britain was a classic example of a stratified social system. Most Brit's can here a few words and know where someones place is in society. Guitar god and singer-songwriter Richard Thomspon speaks of this nasty aspect of British society in his song Crawl Back Under My Stone: Crawl Back (Under My Stone) Written by Richard Thompson Appears on Mock Tudor (1999) Semi-Detached Mock Tudor (2002) Live in Providence DVD EP (2004) live from austin tx DVD CD (2005) This time you hurt me You really did it this time you did Did you count your fingers after shaking my hand God forbid Riff raff crawling from the slums Right there in front of all your chums I swear by the pricking of my thumbs I'll make your day and melt away I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone But you won't have to stand next to me You won't have to introduce me You won't have to think about, talk about, care about, me I'll crawl back I've got a nerve just showing my face don't you think Scruffy little likes ought to know their place don't you think Old boy, sorry to intrude Damn shame pretty bloody rude I should be horsewhipped and sued Then I'll go quietly my tail between my knees I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone But you won't have to stand next to me You won't have to introduce me You won't have to think about, talk about, care about, me I'll crawl back I want to be middle class Floors and ceilings made of glass I just want to be, I just want to be free You had me in a second you had it all reckoned, you did You guessed my game and my name, rank and number, you did Somehow I gave myself away Some code, some word I didn't say I missed one line in the play And the trap shut tight and you did me all right I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone I'll crawl back under my stone But you won't have to stand next to me You won't have to introduce me You won't have to think about, talk about, care about You won't have to ask about, fuss about, discuss about You won't have to mind about, swear about, forget about, me Crawl back I'll crawl back I'll crawl back Crawl back I'll crawl back Crawl back Crawl back I'll crawl back I was asking Curtis if he knew SBS full or deeper view on caste. While Dandielou is one voice, he echoes a view that presumably stems from SBS via his student K. Precisely why I chose that example. That view does not appear exploitive, oppressive, elitist or hate-based. While it may or may not be useful in a post-industrial age, being originally designed for agrarian societies, I think it is fool hardy to adamantly reject all aspects of it based on a horrid use and mutilation of it by the Brits. Yep. I suggest that genetics as a basis for indentifying and culturing traits that excel in various professions and careers, and having a strong, tolerant and vibrant flows of cultural and genetic heritage may be a good thing. Albeit there are many exploitive scenarios, as in anything, that could also unfold. However, to equate and damn the British rape and bastard child caste system as that which a deeply spiritual culture and generations progressively cultivated -- is quite short-sighted. Danielou adds interestingly that the varna system today is seen in career and educational systems based on IQ (which is largely inherited).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Angela Mailander wrote: The groupie gopis Krishna's got following him around were, according to these alternative accounts, two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. According to Hindu mythology, Krishna was a baby' so it's not surprising that he got 'gopis' to follow him around, since he was an infant, named Gopala, but I'm not following you as to how an infant like Krishna could get two 'thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna' is said to have raped.' Was the infant Gopala a commander of an army? Maybe you should read some Indian history. Can you cite any historical evidence that Krishna was a real-life black hero who went around raping white girls? You can't make this stuff up! Richard J. Williams wrote: Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was of the renounced order, so he would have renounced the Hindu system of 'caste'. From what I've read, SBS did not teach on the basis of caste, having rejected it. If the Swami had upheld the 'caste' system he would not have made Marshy his close confidant. The modern 'caste system' in India is based on 'jati', birth circumstances, not skin color.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Vaj wrote: If one wants to have a real good idea about what the varnas are and how they were intended should read the recently translated works on the varnas by Alain Danielou. [snip] This is why individuals of different races are not at the same level in their evolution. - Alain Danielou WTF? This is outrageous!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Did I say he was black and raped white girls? I suggested that the Indo-Aryan invasion was guilty of genocide against the indigenous population which was darker skinned. I'll get the references later--maybe much later since I gotta be ready to my my ass to Minnesota in two weeks. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: The groupie gopis Krishna's got following him around were, according to these alternative accounts, two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. According to Hindu mythology, Krishna was a baby' so it's not surprising that he got 'gopis' to follow him around, since he was an infant, named Gopala, but I'm not following you as to how an infant like Krishna could get two 'thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna' is said to have raped.' Was the infant Gopala a commander of an army? Maybe you should read some Indian history. Can you cite any historical evidence that Krishna was a real-life black hero who went around raping white girls? You can't make this stuff up! Richard J. Williams wrote: Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was of the renounced order, so he would have renounced the Hindu system of 'caste'. From what I've read, SBS did not teach on the basis of caste, having rejected it. If the Swami had upheld the 'caste' system he would not have made Marshy his close confidant. The modern 'caste system' in India is based on 'jati', birth circumstances, not skin color. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Angela Mailander wrote: Did I say he was black and raped white girls? Oh, I'm sorry, maybe you meant that the infant Gopala was white and he raped black girls. But, who, exactly, said this anyway? Never heard of an infant raping anyone, black or white. For what purpose would an infant do this, either way? You can't make this stuff up! two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. I suggested that the Indo-Aryan invasion was guilty of genocide against the indigenous population which was darker skinned. So, where did you get this information? Maybe the Indo-Aryans were South Asians in the first place and they were mixed, dark and white from the beginning. Is there any evidence that the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia and committed 'genocide against the indigenous population which was darker skinned'? Is there any evidence for an 'invasion' by any Indo-Aryans in the first place? Maybe they spread *out* from South Asia instead of coming *in* to South Asia. I guess there would be some archaeological or epigraphic evidence somewhere for an invasion. If the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia, where do you suppose the original inhabitants came from? I'll get the references later--maybe much later since I gotta be ready to my my ass to Minnesota in two weeks. Maybe so. Angela Mailander wrote: The groupie gopis Krishna's got following him around were, according to these alternative accounts, two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Hindu mythology, Krishna was a baby' so it's not surprising that he got 'gopis' to follow him around, since he was an infant, named Gopala, but I'm not following you as to how an infant like Krishna could get two 'thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna' is said to have raped.' Was the infant Gopala a commander of an army? Maybe you should read some Indian history. Can you cite any historical evidence that Krishna was a real-life black hero who went around raping white girls? You can't make this stuff up!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
According to my sources on the Indo-Aryan invasion and the resultant holocausts, he was not an infant--that was your take on him, not mine. I'll supply the documentation when I can, meanwhile, rest assured that it can be documented. However, it is not what main stream historians accept. Living in different cultures all of my life, however, I have seen incontrovertible evidence that main stream histories are not to be trusted. That doesn't mean alternative histories can be trusted, but it is at least a place to start to get a sense of what really happened. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: Did I say he was black and raped white girls? Oh, I'm sorry, maybe you meant that the infant Gopala was white and he raped black girls. But, who, exactly, said this anyway? Never heard of an infant raping anyone, black or white. For what purpose would an infant do this, either way? You can't make this stuff up! two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. I suggested that the Indo-Aryan invasion was guilty of genocide against the indigenous population which was darker skinned. So, where did you get this information? Maybe the Indo-Aryans were South Asians in the first place and they were mixed, dark and white from the beginning. Is there any evidence that the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia and committed 'genocide against the indigenous population which was darker skinned'? Is there any evidence for an 'invasion' by any Indo-Aryans in the first place? Maybe they spread *out* from South Asia instead of coming *in* to South Asia. I guess there would be some archaeological or epigraphic evidence somewhere for an invasion. If the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia, where do you suppose the original inhabitants came from? I'll get the references later--maybe much later since I gotta be ready to my my ass to Minnesota in two weeks. Maybe so. Angela Mailander wrote: The groupie gopis Krishna's got following him around were, according to these alternative accounts, two thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna is said to have raped. Richard J. Williams wrote: According to Hindu mythology, Krishna was a baby' so it's not surprising that he got 'gopis' to follow him around, since he was an infant, named Gopala, but I'm not following you as to how an infant like Krishna could get two 'thousand women whom the real-life military commander Krishna' is said to have raped.' Was the infant Gopala a commander of an army? Maybe you should read some Indian history. Can you cite any historical evidence that Krishna was a real-life black hero who went around raping white girls? You can't make this stuff up! Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. P 46 The very physical structure of the child is cultured like that in order to pronounce those hymns with perfect rhythm to produce that particular effect. That is why they have the caste system in India:this caste will do this work an that caste will do that work. Someone does this work and in this way he is brought up and then this is the yagya for him. This is like the different types of radios to tune to different wave lengths. It has a very great significance. People forget about the greatness and fineness of this division of labor in society and begin to mingle.(MMY's caps here) THAT IS JUST NOT KNOWING THE DEEP SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION OF PEOPLE. Not having that knowledge and thinking that all should get a chance for everything, what a terrible mess it is. Me: He then goes on to explain that society wont have the right number of people to do the right jobs if everyone chooses their own occupation. He was the one who put caps on the claim that societies jobs are based on a person's state of evolution. I find this statement to be highly repugnant. So who wants to claim that Maharishi made all this up and this was not a part of Guru Dev's perspective? He uses the phrase thinking that all should get a chance for everything as causing the mess society is in. I'd like to hear someone tell that to the science wiz son of a Hispanic field hand immigrant whose family risked death to put him in a situation where his full potential could blossom through education. Please note that nowhere is it mentioned that today's version of the system is either an import, a corruption of the British, or not as the old Vedic version. Know your place you lower caste laborers, God wants you picking cotton and your kids picking cotton, and their kids picking cotton. Know your place and know your DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION. If you get uppity you'll just mess up the society. Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth from all this enlightened spiritual perspective.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
On May 12, 2008, at 1:48 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. P 46 The very physical structure of the child is cultured like that in order to pronounce those hymns with perfect rhythm to produce that particular effect. That is why they have the caste system in India:this caste will do this work an that caste will do that work. Someone does this work and in this way he is brought up and then this is the yagya for him. This is like the different types of radios to tune to different wave lengths. It has a very great significance. People forget about the greatness and fineness of this division of labor in society and begin to mingle.(MMY's caps here) THAT IS JUST NOT KNOWING THE DEEP SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION OF PEOPLE. Not having that knowledge and thinking that all should get a chance for everything, what a terrible mess it is. Me: He then goes on to explain that society wont have the right number of people to do the right jobs if everyone chooses their own occupation. He was the one who put caps on the claim that societies jobs are based on a person's state of evolution. I find this statement to be highly repugnant. So who wants to claim that Maharishi made all this up and this was not a part of Guru Dev's perspective? He uses the phrase thinking that all should get a chance for everything as causing the mess society is in. I'd like to hear someone tell that to the science wiz son of a Hispanic field hand immigrant whose family risked death to put him in a situation where his full potential could blossom through education. Please note that nowhere is it mentioned that today's version of the system is either an import, a corruption of the British, or not as the old Vedic version. Know your place you lower caste laborers, God wants you picking cotton and your kids picking cotton, and their kids picking cotton. Know your place and know your DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION. If you get uppity you'll just mess up the society. Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth from all this enlightened spiritual perspective. Well, as numerous people like Paul Mason have shown, a close look at Guru Dev's own teachings do indicate that Mahesh's teachings are a distortion of SBS's teaching. Purity of the tradition? Ha, that was lost long ago. I wouldn't expect M's teachings to be representative of SBS, who was elected as a representative of the tradition of Shankara and Smarta-style Hinduism and M. just a pretender.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Curtis wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. And you followed this guy for years and taught the Vedic religion in his name? What were you thinking back then, Curtis? You're just another super religious guy who is now feeling guilty. All this proves is that you and the Marshy were almost totally misinformed. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. P 46 The very physical structure of the child is cultured like that in order to pronounce those hymns with perfect rhythm to produce that particular effect. That is why they have the caste system in India:this caste will do this work an that caste will do that work. Someone does this work and in this way he is brought up and then this is the yagya for him. This is like the different types of radios to tune to different wave lengths. It has a very great significance. People forget about the greatness and fineness of this division of labor in society and begin to mingle.(MMY's caps here) THAT IS JUST NOT KNOWING THE DEEP SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION OF PEOPLE. Not having that knowledge and thinking that all should get a chance for everything, what a terrible mess it is. Me: He then goes on to explain that society wont have the right number of people to do the right jobs if everyone chooses their own occupation. He was the one who put caps on the claim that societies jobs are based on a person's state of evolution. I find this statement to be highly repugnant. So who wants to claim that Maharishi made all this up and this was not a part of Guru Dev's perspective? And furthermore, who wants to claim that *either* of them had a handle on the different specific states of evolution of people. I suspect that both were as clueless as everyone else. They just repeated the same bullshit that had been told to them and hoped others would buy it as completely as they had. He uses the phrase thinking that all should get a chance for everything as causing the mess society is in. I'd like to hear someone tell that to the science wiz son of a Hispanic field hand immigrant whose family risked death to put him in a situation where his full potential could blossom through education. Please note that nowhere is it mentioned that today's version of the system is either an import, a corruption of the British, or not as the old Vedic version. Know your place you lower caste laborers, God wants you picking cotton and your kids picking cotton, and their kids picking cotton. Know your place and know your DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION. The way that WE do. Of course, our place is at the top of the power pyramid and yours is on one of the much, much, much lower levels, but think of all the people YOU are higher than. If you get uppity you'll just mess up the society. Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth from all this enlightened spiritual perspective. Excuse me while I join you. I find it particularly fascinating that Westerners who would be casteless and thus lower than untouchables would find a way to support the caste system. Maharishi was trolling for elitists in this early book, and obviously found them. I wonder how they would have reacted if Maharishi had been honest with them about how he regarded *them*. That is, as disposable cash cows. Instead, he convinced them what *important* cash cows they were. They can't think clearly about the caste system or anything that they were told was Vedic and thus good because if they doubted any of that, they would have to doubt their unshakable belief that they as important and highly evolved as he told them they were, and as they wanted to be. In my book, knowing your place actually DOES have a value. Our place is at EXACTLY the same level as every other human being on the planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. P 46 The very physical structure of the child is cultured like that in order to pronounce those hymns with perfect rhythm to produce that particular effect. That is why they have the caste system in India:this caste will do this work an that caste will do that work. Someone does this work and in this way he is brought up and then this is the yagya for him. This is like the different types of radios to tune to different wave lengths. It has a very great significance. People forget about the greatness and fineness of this division of labor in society and begin to mingle.(MMY's caps here) THAT IS JUST NOT KNOWING THE DEEP SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION OF PEOPLE. Not having that knowledge and thinking that all should get a chance for everything, what a terrible mess it is. Me: He then goes on to explain that society wont have the right number of people to do the right jobs if everyone chooses their own occupation. He was the one who put caps on the claim that societies jobs are based on a person's state of evolution. I find this statement to be highly repugnant. So who wants to claim that Maharishi made all this up and this was not a part of Guru Dev's perspective? And furthermore, who wants to claim that *either* of them had a handle on the different specific states of evolution of people. I suspect that both were as clueless as everyone else. They just repeated the same bullshit that had been told to them and hoped others would buy it as completely as they had. He uses the phrase thinking that all should get a chance for everything as causing the mess society is in. I'd like to hear someone tell that to the science wiz son of a Hispanic field hand immigrant whose family risked death to put him in a situation where his full potential could blossom through education. Please note that nowhere is it mentioned that today's version of the system is either an import, a corruption of the British, or not as the old Vedic version. Know your place you lower caste laborers, God wants you picking cotton and your kids picking cotton, and their kids picking cotton. Know your place and know your DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION. The way that WE do. Of course, our place is at the top of the power pyramid and yours is on one of the much, much, much lower levels, but think of all the people YOU are higher than. If you get uppity you'll just mess up the society. Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth from all this enlightened spiritual perspective. Excuse me while I join you. I find it particularly fascinating that Westerners who would be casteless and thus lower than untouchables would find a way to support the caste system. Maharishi was trolling for elitists in this early book, and obviously found them. I wonder how they would have reacted if Maharishi had been honest with them about how he regarded *them*. That is, as disposable cash cows. Instead, he convinced them what *important* cash cows they were. They can't think clearly about the caste system or anything that they were told was Vedic and thus good because if they doubted any of that, they would have to doubt their unshakable belief that they as important and highly evolved as he told them they were, and as they wanted to be. In my book, knowing your place actually DOES have a value. Our place is at EXACTLY the same level as every other human being on the planet. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen during his debate with Dan Quayle: You're no Guru Dev, Senator. It all comes down to the motives you discern for MMY and SBS. If you see them as elitist power trippers, intent on scamming as many fools as they could, and living off the resulting bounty for personal wealth and self aggrandizement, then that is your interpretation of what they wrote, and why they wrote it. From that perspective, both MMY and SBS sound like borderline sociopaths and I am surprised anyone with half a brain had anything to do with them. No better than any other garden variety cult leaders. Who can argue with that? I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. And you followed this guy for years and taught the Vedic religion in his name? What were you thinking back then, Curtis? You're just another super religious guy who is now feeling guilty. I thought it was all great when I taught it. Loved the stuff and idealistically thought I was getting enlightened and improving the world. Haven't you changed any of your perspectives over the years Richard? I bought in when I was 16 years old. I've done a bit more reading since then. As Lincoln responded to a similar dig: I don't respect a man who doesn't know more today than he did yesterday. All this proves is that you and the Marshy were almost totally misinformed. Go figure. Well we agree on that but perhaps for different reasons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
It all comes down to the motives you discern for MMY and SBS. If you see them as elitist power trippers, intent on scamming as many fools as they could, and living off the resulting bounty for personal wealth and self aggrandizement, then that is your interpretation of what they wrote, and why they wrote it. From that perspective, both MMY and SBS sound like borderline sociopaths and I am surprised anyone with half a brain had anything to do with them. No better than any other garden variety cult leaders. Who can argue with that? I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind. This is a false alternative. I am not saying any of those things about them. Just that I don't see him as more than a super religious guy. I assume they believed their own rap, I have no reason not to. People's pure motives don't mean they are right. By saying that I don't get the big stink made about Guru Dev, that he was more special than other orthodox Hindu leaders, doesn't in any way mean that I think he was any nuttier than other religious leaders who believe in what they are doing. I am just not buying into the His Divinity movement myth. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. It was the first book I read of his and I am taking this from its first printing in 1968, years before I actually started TM. P 46 The very physical structure of the child is cultured like that in order to pronounce those hymns with perfect rhythm to produce that particular effect. That is why they have the caste system in India:this caste will do this work an that caste will do that work. Someone does this work and in this way he is brought up and then this is the yagya for him. This is like the different types of radios to tune to different wave lengths. It has a very great significance. People forget about the greatness and fineness of this division of labor in society and begin to mingle.(MMY's caps here) THAT IS JUST NOT KNOWING THE DEEP SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION OF PEOPLE. Not having that knowledge and thinking that all should get a chance for everything, what a terrible mess it is. Me: He then goes on to explain that society wont have the right number of people to do the right jobs if everyone chooses their own occupation. He was the one who put caps on the claim that societies jobs are based on a person's state of evolution. I find this statement to be highly repugnant. So who wants to claim that Maharishi made all this up and this was not a part of Guru Dev's perspective? And furthermore, who wants to claim that *either* of them had a handle on the different specific states of evolution of people. I suspect that both were as clueless as everyone else. They just repeated the same bullshit that had been told to them and hoped others would buy it as completely as they had. He uses the phrase thinking that all should get a chance for everything as causing the mess society is in. I'd like to hear someone tell that to the science wiz son of a Hispanic field hand immigrant whose family risked death to put him in a situation where his full potential could blossom through education. Please note that nowhere is it mentioned that today's version of the system is either an import, a corruption of the British, or not as the old Vedic version. Know your place you lower caste laborers, God wants you picking cotton and your kids picking cotton, and their kids picking cotton. Know your place and know your DIFFERENT SPECIFIC STATES OF EVOLUTION. The way that WE do. Of course, our place is at the top of the power pyramid and yours is on one of the much, much, much lower levels, but think of all the people YOU are higher than. If you get uppity you'll just mess up the society. Excuse me while I throw up in my mouth from all this enlightened spiritual perspective. Excuse me while I join you. I find it particularly fascinating that Westerners who would be casteless and thus lower than untouchables would find a way to support the caste system. Maharishi was trolling for elitists in this early book, and obviously found them. I wonder how they would have reacted if Maharishi had been honest with them about how he regarded *them*. That is, as disposable cash cows. Instead, he convinced them what *important* cash cows they were. They can't think clearly
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Angela Mailander wrote: According to my sources on the Indo-Aryan invasion and the resultant holocausts, he was not an infant--that was your take on him, not mine. But, you said 'gopis', that indicates that you were talking about the infant 'Gopala', the cow herd boy of Indian mythology. And most of those myths say that Krishna was black, since the Sanskrit word for black is 'Krishna', the 'Dark Lord'. I guess what you're saying is that the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia and tried to kill the infant Gopala and take his cows and his wives that he raped. Hell, I don't even know what you're talking about! But the Indian myth has Gopala killing the tyrant Kamsa; I didn't know that Kamsa was an Indo-Aryan from Buddhapest - I always thought that Kamsa was from Mathura. Wasn't Gopala the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, according to the Bhagavata Purana? But you're saying Gopala the infant invaded India and raped a bunch of black girls and wiped out all the white people? But, Angela, maybe it was Radha, the white married cow girl, who raped the black infant boy Gopala - have ever considered reading Indian mythology? Angela Mailander wrote: Did I say he was black and raped white girls? Richard J. Williams wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, maybe you meant that the infant Gopala was white and he raped black girls. But, who, exactly, said this anyway? Never heard of an infant raping anyone, black or white. For what purpose would an infant do this, either way? You can't make this stuff up!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Quit trying to guess what I'm saying. You're getting it wrong every time. Moreover, it isn't worth arguing about. --- Richard J. Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Angela Mailander wrote: According to my sources on the Indo-Aryan invasion and the resultant holocausts, he was not an infant--that was your take on him, not mine. But, you said 'gopis', that indicates that you were talking about the infant 'Gopala', the cow herd boy of Indian mythology. And most of those myths say that Krishna was black, since the Sanskrit word for black is 'Krishna', the 'Dark Lord'. I guess what you're saying is that the Indo-Aryans invaded South Asia and tried to kill the infant Gopala and take his cows and his wives that he raped. Hell, I don't even know what you're talking about! But the Indian myth has Gopala killing the tyrant Kamsa; I didn't know that Kamsa was an Indo-Aryan from Buddhapest - I always thought that Kamsa was from Mathura. Wasn't Gopala the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva, according to the Bhagavata Purana? But you're saying Gopala the infant invaded India and raped a bunch of black girls and wiped out all the white people? But, Angela, maybe it was Radha, the white married cow girl, who raped the black infant boy Gopala - have ever considered reading Indian mythology? Angela Mailander wrote: Did I say he was black and raped white girls? Richard J. Williams wrote: Oh, I'm sorry, maybe you meant that the infant Gopala was white and he raped black girls. But, who, exactly, said this anyway? Never heard of an infant raping anyone, black or white. For what purpose would an infant do this, either way? You can't make this stuff up! Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It all comes down to the motives you discern for MMY and SBS. If you see them as elitist power trippers, intent on scamming as many fools as they could, and living off the resulting bounty for personal wealth and self aggrandizement, then that is your interpretation of what they wrote, and why they wrote it. From that perspective, both MMY and SBS sound like borderline sociopaths and I am surprised anyone with half a brain had anything to do with them. No better than any other garden variety cult leaders. Who can argue with that? I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind. This is a false alternative. I am not saying any of those things about them. Just that I don't see him as more than a super religious guy. I assume they believed their own rap, I have no reason not to. Exactly. But the fact that they did believe it, and had never bothered to look *beyond* their religious rap to what it meant for other people says more about them IMO than what they chose to believe. People's pure motives don't mean they are right. Think of all those Inquisitors who were *firmly* convinced that by torturing these heretics until they confessed was good for their souls. They had pure motives, too. And they believed *their* rap, too. That doesn't make the rap valid. By saying that I don't get the big stink made about Guru Dev, that he was more special than other orthodox Hindu leaders, doesn't in any way mean that I think he was any nuttier than other religious leaders who believe in what they are doing. I am just not buying into the His Divinity movement myth. In my opinion it's a self importance thing on the part of the students. Maharishi had to believe that Guru Dev was the best because *he* wanted to believe that he was worthy of hanging with the best. Many of Maharishi's students feel the same way about both MMY and GD. They put them on a pedestal because they were the ones who got to hang around the base of the pedestal fawning over them, and they want to believe that was meaningful.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It all comes down to the motives you discern for MMY and SBS. If you see them as elitist power trippers, intent on scamming as many fools as they could, and living off the resulting bounty for personal wealth and self aggrandizement, then that is your interpretation of what they wrote, and why they wrote it. From that perspective, both MMY and SBS sound like borderline sociopaths and I am surprised anyone with half a brain had anything to do with them. No better than any other garden variety cult leaders. Who can argue with that? I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind. This is a false alternative. I am not saying any of those things about them. Just that I don't see him as more than a super religious guy. I assume they believed their own rap, I have no reason not to. People's pure motives don't mean they are right. By saying that I don't get the big stink made about Guru Dev, that he was more special than other orthodox Hindu leaders, doesn't in any way mean that I think he was any nuttier than other religious leaders who believe in what they are doing. I am just not buying into the His Divinity movement myth. I see where you are going with this, and strongly agree in principle with your method-- I really enjoy re-examining stuff I once took for granted. A very healthy thing to do imo. In this case though, it is all experiential for me, and in this instance there is nothing to re- examine. Its probably like finding out that my dad went out with a BB gun as a teenager and shot out a bunch of street lights. Tarnishes the image slightly but basically nothing changes. Anyway, it would be cool if you, me and SB could meet up one of these days (eons?), have a pow wow, and just talk about stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Curtis, MMY said in the past that once you've been initiated into the tradition, the effects of of the mantra stays with you ad infinitum. If your meditation practice is interrupted in this lifetime, you will probably pick it up again in the next one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Curtis wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. And you followed this guy for years and taught the Vedic religion in his name? What were you thinking back then, Curtis? You're just another super religious guy who is now feeling guilty. I thought it was all great when I taught it. Loved the stuff and idealistically thought I was getting enlightened and improving the world. Haven't you changed any of your perspectives over the years Richard? I bought in when I was 16 years old. I've done a bit more reading since then. As Lincoln responded to a similar dig: I don't respect a man who doesn't know more today than he did yesterday. All this proves is that you and the Marshy were almost totally misinformed. Go figure. Well we agree on that but perhaps for different reasons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Anyway,it would be cool if you, me and SB could meet up one of these days(eons?), have a pow wow, and just talk about stuff. Sounds like more fun if we ditched the square. He could join us on the condition that he would be willing to start the night with a few shots of Reposito Tequila that had spent about 18 months in an oak cask, and was ready to bust out all the pranks he pulled on young Bal Brahmachari Mahesh back in the day... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: It all comes down to the motives you discern for MMY and SBS. If you see them as elitist power trippers, intent on scamming as many fools as they could, and living off the resulting bounty for personal wealth and self aggrandizement, then that is your interpretation of what they wrote, and why they wrote it. From that perspective, both MMY and SBS sound like borderline sociopaths and I am surprised anyone with half a brain had anything to do with them. No better than any other garden variety cult leaders. Who can argue with that? I'll leave your interpretation to you, and let you own it. I have my own, with no intent to change anyone's mind. This is a false alternative. I am not saying any of those things about them. Just that I don't see him as more than a super religious guy. I assume they believed their own rap, I have no reason not to. People's pure motives don't mean they are right. By saying that I don't get the big stink made about Guru Dev, that he was more special than other orthodox Hindu leaders, doesn't in any way mean that I think he was any nuttier than other religious leaders who believe in what they are doing. I am just not buying into the His Divinity movement myth. I see where you are going with this, and strongly agree in principle with your method-- I really enjoy re-examining stuff I once took for granted. A very healthy thing to do imo. In this case though, it is all experiential for me, and in this instance there is nothing to re- examine. Its probably like finding out that my dad went out with a BB gun as a teenager and shot out a bunch of street lights. Tarnishes the image slightly but basically nothing changes. Anyway, it would be cool if you, me and SB could meet up one of these days (eons?), have a pow wow, and just talk about stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, MMY said in the past that once you've been initiated into the tradition, the effects of of the mantra stays with you ad infinitum. If your meditation practice is interrupted in this lifetime, you will probably pick it up again in the next one. And how do you imagine a human being could know such a thing? I think it is just a way for mediators to deal with drop outs. Can you see how it might be viewed as a bit condescending? I don't assume that TM is good for everyone, do you? Anyway I've been meditating regularly as a test since February. I am trying to understand its value as a practice without all the beliefs in the system. (at least the ones I am conscious of and have discarded) So far so good, so I guess my magic mantra found me again in this life. At least for now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams willytex@ wrote: Curtis wrote: Here is a little gem from Maharishi on caste from his Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi compilation of his SRM pamphlets. And you followed this guy for years and taught the Vedic religion in his name? What were you thinking back then, Curtis? You're just another super religious guy who is now feeling guilty. I thought it was all great when I taught it. Loved the stuff and idealistically thought I was getting enlightened and improving the world. Haven't you changed any of your perspectives over the years Richard? I bought in when I was 16 years old. I've done a bit more reading since then. As Lincoln responded to a similar dig: I don't respect a man who doesn't know more today than he did yesterday. All this proves is that you and the Marshy were almost totally misinformed. Go figure. Well we agree on that but perhaps for different reasons.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyway,it would be cool if you, me and SB could meet up one of these days(eons?), have a pow wow, and just talk about stuff. Sounds like more fun if we ditched the square. He could join us on the condition that he would be willing to start the night with a few shots of Reposito Tequila that had spent about 18 months in an oak cask, and was ready to bust out all the pranks he pulled on young Bal Brahmachari Mahesh back in the day... That would be great- we'd be laughing our asses off no doubt!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
On May 12, 2008, at 3:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Curtis, MMY said in the past that once you've been initiated into the tradition, the effects of of the mantra stays with you ad infinitum. If your meditation practice is interrupted in this lifetime, you will probably pick it up again in the next one. And how do you imagine a human being could know such a thing? Ever hear of the subconscious? :-) What if you had access to it's database (every sensory contact you'd had in this lifetime, for example)? And a technique--and later--an innate ability to do so. There's a very elaborate metaphysic which describes how this type of thing is stored and then re-imprinted on a new set of DNA (a new life). But to grok it in scientific terms you come face to face with so-called fringe science: morphogenetic fields (memories retained in nature over time, like, for example that of the lineal masters of the wonderful Holy tradition) or Wilhelm Reich and the alleged scientific discovery of prana (what he called orgone LOL). If I had a day with a total sceptic, who at least was someone who tried meditation in earnest for years like yourself, and got a day in Reich's laboratory, you'd actually find yourself--despite an utter lack of mainstream science to support it, seriously consider that their was a heretofore unknown force the Hindus call prana. (although I think the word orgone is really just waiting for a B/W 1950's sci-fi spoof, I gotta admit) Every hear of Intrauterine Psychiatry? It's actually a modern scientific field. These are the ideas we are into when we ask the deep questions you challenge...and certainly ones worth at least trying to answer. But given a weekend, I could turn your logical perception of reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Anyway I've been meditating regularly as a test since February. I am trying to understand its value as a practice without all the beliefs in the system. (at least the ones I am conscious of and have discarded) So far so good, so I guess my magic mantra found me again in this life. At least for now. So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Anyway I've been meditating regularly as a test since February. I am trying to understand its value as a practice without all the beliefs in the system. (at least the ones I am conscious of and have discarded) So far so good, so I guess my magic mantra found me again in this life. At least for now. So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
snip Ruth: So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it. Me: Thanks for asking. Hardly worth a new topic. I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the delicious irony of me recommending checking! But I think Maharishi was an excellent meditation teacher so I wouldn't rule it out if you know someone) It feels nice to not shut out meditation as an option for my life. I don't know how long I will stick with it, but I could imagine doing it for the rest of my life, at least occasionally. But I meditated twice today again so I seem to be voting with my ass, it finds the seat! Thanks for letting me process some of my thoughts about it Ruth.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
But given a weekend, I could turn your logical perception of reality. I would be up for it as long as I got the no ball gag rule in writing beforehand. Oh yeah, and no gimp masks. I'm sure you already know all everything a pseudo scientifically minded dipshit like me would need for such a test. I think this could be proven objectively and long before I need to enter any subjective mental states. I don't doubt I could experience my past lives in detail, (or practically anything else) I'm doubting I actually had them, no matter what I think I experienced. But the unconscious mind is wonderland with or without the cat-O-nine tails. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 12, 2008, at 3:59 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: Curtis, MMY said in the past that once you've been initiated into the tradition, the effects of of the mantra stays with you ad infinitum. If your meditation practice is interrupted in this lifetime, you will probably pick it up again in the next one. And how do you imagine a human being could know such a thing? Ever hear of the subconscious? :-) What if you had access to it's database (every sensory contact you'd had in this lifetime, for example)? And a technique--and later--an innate ability to do so. There's a very elaborate metaphysic which describes how this type of thing is stored and then re-imprinted on a new set of DNA (a new life). But to grok it in scientific terms you come face to face with so-called fringe science: morphogenetic fields (memories retained in nature over time, like, for example that of the lineal masters of the wonderful Holy tradition) or Wilhelm Reich and the alleged scientific discovery of prana (what he called orgone LOL). If I had a day with a total sceptic, who at least was someone who tried meditation in earnest for years like yourself, and got a day in Reich's laboratory, you'd actually find yourself--despite an utter lack of mainstream science to support it, seriously consider that their was a heretofore unknown force the Hindus call prana. (although I think the word orgone is really just waiting for a B/W 1950's sci-fi spoof, I gotta admit) Every hear of Intrauterine Psychiatry? It's actually a modern scientific field. These are the ideas we are into when we ask the deep questions you challenge...and certainly ones worth at least trying to answer. But given a weekend, I could turn your logical perception of reality.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Vaj wrote: But given a weekend, I could turn your logical perception of reality. Curtis wrote: I would be up for it as long as I got the no ball gag rule in writing beforehand. no ball gag? So, it does seem to all come back to sex with you guys. But I already told you, I'm not gay.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ruth: So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it. Me: Thanks for asking. Hardly worth a new topic. I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the delicious irony of me recommending checking! But I think Maharishi was an excellent meditation teacher so I wouldn't rule it out if you know someone) It feels nice to not shut out meditation as an option for my life. I don't know how long I will stick with it, but I could imagine doing it for the rest of my life, at least occasionally. But I meditated twice today again so I seem to be voting with my ass, it finds the seat! Thanks for letting me process some of my thoughts about it Ruth. Hey, it was Nab something or other who always told me to get a checking! Yes I have rounded (pure hell). I can easily drop back into meditation. But I simply don't much like doing it. In the sense that I feel, oh shit, do I have to sit and meditate again? Or, man, has only 5 minutes past? I'm getting up. I have wondered if it is my nature. I am very very good at focusing in on a problem and working on solutions. I pace. I grimace. I go back and forth with colleagues. I figure something out and I jump up and down. I am a very physical thinker. Stillness and I do not mix well. My only health problem is a lifelong difficulty falling asleep because my mind does not want to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Ruth: So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it. Me: Thanks for asking. Hardly worth a new topic. I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the delicious irony of me recommending checking! But I think Maharishi was an excellent meditation teacher so I wouldn't rule it out if you know someone) It feels nice to not shut out meditation as an option for my life. I don't know how long I will stick with it, but I could imagine doing it for the rest of my life, at least occasionally. But I meditated twice today again so I seem to be voting with my ass, it finds the seat! Thanks for letting me process some of my thoughts about it Ruth. Glad to hear about your practice Curtis-- I know I come off like a zealot here sometimes, but truth be told I use TM to just tune my mind after a night's sleep and clean out my mind after a hard day at work. Don't really use it for anything else or buy into any other reason for it-- I just find it restful-- end of story. And its great to just do it and not think why.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--Yet, you're on the Spiritual Path (or not?). If so, and you're not just hanging out on this forum to shoot the breeze; I recommend the following: contact http://www.arunachala.org and get 1. the DVD Sage of Arunachala. View it for 10 min per day. Then get the following CD audios: 2. Veda Parayana, Evening (which has the Rudram). 3. Arunachala Stuti Panchakam. Then from the SYDA bookstore, get the Guru Gita video of Swami Chidvilisananda. (I have the VHS. Check out the website if they also have a DVD). Then 4. get the CD of Swami Muktananda chanting the Guru Gita. Play the foregoing media items regularly for one month and report back on the results. Since your mind will be occupied with powerful sources of Shakti, you'll forget that you are meditating silently. - In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: snip Ruth: So off your very interesting topic, so you might want to start a new topic if you respond, but how is the practice going? Is it the same as it ever was? I tried going back for a bit, but I was too twitchy to stay with it. Me: Thanks for asking. Hardly worth a new topic. I'm just like dozens of guys I taught back in the day who enjoyed meditating but didn't buy into any of the beliefs. (I used to feel sooo superior to guys like me then!) I started out last year, inspired by Sam Harris's call for a secular approach to meditation as a way of self inquiry. It made me wonder how much the belief effected the experience. I started just sitting without the mantra, which seems too long and cumbersome at first. I found that I really enjoyed the experience, it reminded me of how I used to feel in the silence after program before I opened my eyes. So the state I remember came back right away and it reconnected me with a part of my past. My regular TM practice coincided with Maharishi's death with so much time reminiscing about my years immersed in it all. I was catching a nice nostalgia buzz as well as a chance to process who Maharishi had been in my life. It seemed fitting to meditate as I considered his life in detail. Then after sitting for my very open style of meditation for a while, my old mantra started up after 18 years, the whole damn long ass thing. I was actually trying to avoid doing TM as an experiment, but I had spent too many years with that process so it seemed silly to resist what seems to be my style of meditation from Maharishi. I can't say it is any better than what I was doing without the mantra, but it isn't optional, so I am dare I say it, taking it as it comes. I kind of enjoyed the idea of doing my retro Beatles approved groovy old TM! I didn't stop 18 years ago because I didn't have good experiences with TM, I stopped because I thought Maharishi was wrong about the whole belief system around it. That is still where I am with the beliefs. I don't believe in stress release, or expansion of consciousness or even cumulative benifits really. I just enjoy the state itself and I do like how I feel afterwards. I think it must dump endorphins because I am back to the expansive enjoyable states of mind along with the usual thoughts mantra cycle. I can't imagine doing the sidhis again and would be really reluctant to devote any more time to this project. But it is like a well worn pair of shoes, and I am enjoying knocking around in them again. I think the long program was too much of a good thing for me which is why I avoided meditation all these years. I am not a fan of too much dissociation and that is a real issue with long programs IMO. As it is, I do feel the slight separateness from my thinking process is a thinking enhancement. I feel some of the benifits of meditation I used to crow so much about. I am looking back at the phrases Maharishi used to describe the experiences and my jury is not in on how I feel about his metaphors now. It took me a while to get over the oversell factor IMO. Thanks for letting me ramble. Did you ever round? I rounded for years and that may be why it is so easy for me to slip back into the practice without a checking, but you might consider it if you cared to try again. It may be a skill you can lose and you might need a reminder of the process. On the other hand passive relaxation is not for everyone so meditation just may not be for you. Did you used to enjoy it? I loved it from day one and couldn't get enough which became my downfall! (I hope someone else here is savoring the delicious irony of me recommending checking! But I think Maharishi was an excellent meditation teacher so I wouldn't rule it out if you know someone) It feels nice to not shut out meditation as an option for my life. I
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure.[28] Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[29] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[30] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule. Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[31] where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[31].[32] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[33] The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities.[34] The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the speciality of a particular sub-caste. Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times.[35] Membership in a particular caste, with its associated narrative, history and genealogy, would instill in its members a sense of group accomplishment and cultural pride. Such sentiments are routinely expressed by the Marathas, Rajputs, Iyers, Jats for instance. British Rule The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[37] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to the class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[38] During the initial days of British East India Company's rules, caste privileges and customs were encouraged,[39] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes. However British policies of divide and rule as well as enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census contributed towards the hardening of caste identities.[40] Varna and jati (Class and caste) According to the ancient Hindu scriptures, there are four varnas. The Bhagavad Gita says varnas are decided based on Guna and Karma. Manusmriti and some other shastras mention four varnas: the Brahmins (teachers, scholars and priests), the Kshatriyas (kings and warriors), the Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (agriculturists, service providers, and some artisan groups). Offspring of different varnas belong to different J#257;tis. Another group
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
Of SBS 108 transcribed talks, only one appears to address caste. If upholding caste indeed was one of his primary missions, wouldn't it be likely that he would talk of caste more. Actually before senility, anybody of any caste should be mindful to do sufficient bhajan and puja of Bhagavan, [for] in this is happiness. Happiness will not be being born in any caste. Happiness will then be from Bhagavan's bhajan and to do bhajan to Bhagavan is merely mans right. There is no talk that one must be a brahmana in order to get mukta (liberation). If bhakti (service) of Bhagavan is done then [all] is well, [but if] not then brahmanas also come to the ruler of hell and the devout shudra can gain Bhagavan. Wherever happiness is to be, there nobody is brahmana, is not kShatriya, is not vaishya, is not shudra. In Paramatma there is no difference in anyone, the difference then is in everyday affairs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure.[28] Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[29] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[30] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule. Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[31] where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[31].[32] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[33] The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities.[34] The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the speciality of a particular sub-caste. Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times.[35] Membership in a particular caste, with its associated narrative, history and genealogy, would instill in its members a sense of group accomplishment and cultural pride. Such sentiments are routinely expressed by the Marathas, Rajputs, Iyers, Jats for instance. British Rule The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[37] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since the British society was divided by class, the British attempted to
[FairfieldLife] Re: Caste (Was Guru Dev really Santa? )
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of SBS 108 transcribed talks, only one appears to address caste. If upholding caste indeed was one of his primary missions, wouldn't it be likely that he would talk of caste more. So you are thinking that perhaps the caste system is peripheral to Hindu theology? A side point? He was a Hindu Pope. Core theological tenets of religions are not personal matters of opinion. I'll dig up the Maharishi quote when I can find it. Then you can decide if you think it was part of his primary missions to uphold the caste system in society. I can't find the online Gita commentary, does anyone else have that link? Actually before senility, anybody of any caste should be mindful to do sufficient bhajan and puja of Bhagavan, [for] in this is happiness. Happiness will not be being born in any caste. Happiness will then be from Bhagavan's bhajan and to do bhajan to Bhagavan is merely mans right. There is no talk that one must be a brahmana in order to get mukta (liberation). If bhakti (service) of Bhagavan is done then [all] is well, [but if] not then brahmanas also come to the ruler of hell and the devout shudra can gain Bhagavan. Wherever happiness is to be, there nobody is brahmana, is not kShatriya, is not vaishya, is not shudra. In Paramatma there is no difference in anyone, the difference then is in everyday affairs. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Great details New, I am reading this with interest. It does not surprise me that a Chinese person, especially from that era would not find the caste system oppressive. Perhaps Angela would like to fill us in on the daily life during that dynasty in China. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: Fa Hien a Buddhist pilgrim from China visited India around 400 AD. Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure.[28] Yet another Chinese pilgrim Hsuan Tsang's accounts (around 600 AD) indicate that the king of Sind region was of Sudra caste. In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[29] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[30] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule. Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[31] where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[31].[32] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[33] The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities.[34] The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the speciality of a particular sub-caste. Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times.[35] Membership in a particular caste, with its
