[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [...] King Tony was raised a Christian, and I think it a mark of the universal nature of MMY's teaching that he (King Tony) didn't feel compelled to shade his own religious/cultural interpretation of MMY's destination with Hindu interpretations of the same. Well Lawson I'm sorry to say becoming the first Vedic King in recent history might just belie your assertion. A Vedic king that spouts Christian rhetoric re: his teacher's death. Sounds Hindu to me!!! [last post due to limits] You need to get a life [also]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: snip sigh Lawson, despite all the aspersions cast upon me by you and Our Dear Editor, per FFL posting guidelines, I just snip above what I think is relevant for brevity's sake. There is no mysterious intent behind my snips other than brevity. No, sorry, that's simply not true. Vaj's quoting is among the most profligate of anybody's here; and he fails to indicate when he's left something out. When he snips, it isn't for the sake of brevity. (Not to mention the weird formatting of quotes in his posts, which makes them--possibly intentionally-- very hard to read.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:36 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? I do almost always refer to him as Barack, rarely President Obama, but probably just because I like the sound of his name. O'bama is just too Irish sounding. :-) And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... I believe it was the Kropinski interview with the Shankaracharya of the north where I first heard it. Then others who also called him Mahesh, it was typically because they actually found it offensive that he called himself a Maharishi, a very grandiose title, very presumptuous. Anyhew, I'm with the guy in the lion chair on this one. :-) The specific Shankaracharya of the North that Kropinski talked to was in a battle for custody of the math with someone who was supporting MMY. TO cite HIM as an unbiased source for how SBS addressed MMY is beyond silly. The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/ sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? The Shank. is so corrupt, I doubt I'd trust any of those people. TB's will say anything to get their hero into the Shank. seat, even if they have to lie or kill to do it. So I don't know if I believe any of them. All this tells me (these incessant disputes and in-fightings at most of the seats) is that while the Shank. presumably has some redeeming qualities (preservation of the Advaita vedanta trad., Smarta ideals), in reality they're just another corrupt organization with monks vying for power. I have much more respect for the Mahamandaleshwars than a bunch of pompous Vaishnavite popes. And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [snip] And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) A mind like a supermarket. What does that mean? That there's just about everything you could ever want from the entire world there? And accessible to all, in a way that in bygone times would have only been possible for a privileged elite?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [snip] And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) A mind like a supermarket. What does that mean? Busy. No silence. Not busy AND silence? (How would anyone know?)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Richard M wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: [snip] And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) A mind like a supermarket. What does that mean? Busy. No silence.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
I took it that a mind like a supermarket is a money whore who'll offer any john almost anything to satisfy almost any addiction. Such a market can be expected to stock their end-caps on their best sellers like: a box of chocolate covered Stroke-Ya's for the egos of millionaires, freeze dried Bloody Knees for the poor who think groveling is holy, individual serving sized Rapid Rapes for the newbie babes who don't know enough to not bend over in the presence of Bevan or Hag, gummy bear multi-colored chewies Tar Babies for all the teachers to chew before giving a first lecture so that their smiles are sure to have everyone's religions' favorite colors represented in their glommy grills and, of course, Sweets For Nuts that sweetener that looks like sugar, tastes like sugar, but leaves a lifelong bitter after taste that cannot be gotten rid of even if you wash your mouth with Vaj's Rinse. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard M compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: [snip] And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) A mind like a supermarket. What does that mean? That there's just about everything you could ever want from the entire world there? And accessible to all, in a way that in bygone times would have only been possible for a privileged elite?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:36 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/ sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? The Shank. is so corrupt, I doubt I'd trust any of those people. TB's will say anything to get their hero into the Shank. seat, even if they have to lie or kill to do it. So I don't know if I believe any of them. All this tells me (these incessant disputes and in-fightings at most of the seats) is that while the Shank. presumably has some redeeming qualities (preservation of the Advaita vedanta trad., Smarta ideals), in reality they're just another corrupt organization with monks vying for power. I have much more respect for the Mahamandaleshwars than a bunch of pompous Vaishnavite popes. I note that inadvertently (I'm sure) you snipt the part that shows that I already made this point: Who you going to believe? The answer isn't clearcut, IMHO. = left out for some reason And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) King Tony was raised a Christian, and I think it a mark of the universal nature of MMY's teaching that he (King Tony) didn't feel compelled to shade his own religious/cultural interpretation of MMY's destination with Hindu interpretations of the same. L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 5, 2009, at 4:32 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:36 PM, sparaig wrote: [...] The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/ sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? The Shank. is so corrupt, I doubt I'd trust any of those people. TB's will say anything to get their hero into the Shank. seat, even if they have to lie or kill to do it. So I don't know if I believe any of them. All this tells me (these incessant disputes and in-fightings at most of the seats) is that while the Shank. presumably has some redeeming qualities (preservation of the Advaita vedanta trad., Smarta ideals), in reality they're just another corrupt organization with monks vying for power. I have much more respect for the Mahamandaleshwars than a bunch of pompous Vaishnavite popes. I note that inadvertently (I'm sure) you snipt the part that shows that I already made this point: sigh Lawson, despite all the aspersions cast upon me by you and Our Dear Editor, per FFL posting guidelines, I just snip above what I think is relevant for brevity's sake. There is no mysterious intent behind my snips other than brevity. My close personal relationship with Lord Voldemort has had no influence on my snipping style. Who you going to believe? The answer isn't clearcut, IMHO. = left out for some reason And of course one should be a realizer. Given that one of the Shanks. described M's mind as being like a supermarket, one doubts his level of awareness as much different from any other Hindu Donald Trump. Realizers of Brahman don't go to heaven, do they? ;-) King Tony was raised a Christian, and I think it a mark of the universal nature of MMY's teaching that he (King Tony) didn't feel compelled to shade his own religious/cultural interpretation of MMY's destination with Hindu interpretations of the same. Well Lawson I'm sorry to say becoming the first Vedic King in recent history might just belie your assertion. [last post due to limits]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brah...@... wrote: In the 1965 book Vedic Mathematics by Sankaracharya Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji, Gandharva Veda is listed repeatedly as one of the four upavedas, corresponding to Sama Veda. This is exactly as Maharishi outlined it. The other upavedas are Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, and Dhanurveda. There are two gandharva-veda texts in Vedic reserve: 1. saMgiitaratnaakara by Shaarn.gadeva(?) 2. naaTyashaastra, or something like that. A sample from the 1: sa riri gagaga mamamama papapapapa dhadhadhadhadhadha ninininininini
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:09 AM, at_man_and_brahman wrote: Vaj, Let me see if I have this straight. You are unwilling to trust the authority of one of the last century's most knowledgeable Indian scholars (per the whole chapter about him in Autobiography of a Yogi) to answer the basic question of whether Gandharva Veda has a legitimate relationship to the Vedas, but you are willing to trust Rick's opinion, per your question below? I was wondering what he'd have to say and that was before you brought up the Shankaracharya. When I hear someone giving a Brahmanic and biased point of view, I'm automatically suspect, because I know what I'm hearing is post 800 AD revisionist history. I'm sure he is very knowledgeable of the Brahmin-based opinions, but based on what you'd already said, I'm suspicious. Now if he explained that most of the upavedas were derived from earlier upagamas and then translated into Sanskrit from their original languages, that might be a different story. I don't just buy the party line someone gives because they said it and they're some famous guru. The Brahmin slant on this is just that, their slant of history. It's only accurate in it's own revisionist sort of way. Rick's really in to Indian music, maybe he knows? Perhaps the above-named Sankaracharya, despite his Vaishnavite leanings, was also really in to Indian music, and also, therefore, a worthy source for a definitive answer. I'm sure he could tell us a lot from his point of view and some of it would be quite interesting. Do you have anything to post that he said? Something more than trying to tie everything to a mythical Vedism hopefully!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 5:21 AM, cardemaister wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brah...@... wrote: In the 1965 book Vedic Mathematics by Sankaracharya Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji, Gandharva Veda is listed repeatedly as one of the four upavedas, corresponding to Sama Veda. This is exactly as Maharishi outlined it. The other upavedas are Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, and Dhanurveda. There are two gandharva-veda texts in Vedic reserve: 1. saMgiitaratnaakara by Shaarn.gadeva(?) 2. naaTyashaastra, or something like that. A sample from the 1: sa riri gagaga mamamama papapapapa dhadhadhadhadhadha ninininininini I suspect the real question is going to be the origin of the 22 shruti and of the ragas themselves. Of course music has evolved across times and been shaped by the Vedic cult, just like any other. But a quick look at the ragas and you can see many are named after non-Vedic gods like Bhairava, etc.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
Vaj wrote: They said it, so it must be true... Judy wrote: Funny, that's what just about everybody seems to say, not just Tirthaji. Except you, Vaj, of course. You've got quite a job ahead of you, setting them all straight. Apparently Vaj doesn't accept the notion that the Vedas originated in India itself. I guess he assumes, along with most occidental scholars, that the Vedas were imported into India during the Aryan invasion. But, if the Vedas and the Vedic composers were native inhabitants, Vaj can't say that the there is anything 'pre-Vedic' in South Asia at all. But Vaj has made no case for the Vedas being imported into India by the Aryans. Read more: 'Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India' Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization by David Frawley South Asia Books, 1994 'In Search of the Cradle of Civilization' New Light on Ancient India by Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley Motilal Banarsidass, 2005
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
Vaj wrote: But a quick look at the ragas and you can see many are named after non-Vedic gods like Bhairava, etc... But, can you post any solid evidence that the darshanas and upadevas claimed by MMY are NOT related to the Vedas? If David Frawley is correct, Ayer-Veda and the Gandharvas are mentioned in the Rig Veda and in the Sama Veda, which were composed in India thousands of years ago, so the darshana and upadevas ARE related to the Vedas. Many of the darshanas and upavedas which are claimed by MMY (and others) to be Vedic are not related to the Vedic tradition. - Vaj 'Solid Evidence Debunking Aryan Invasion' by David Frawley http://tinyurl.com/pmh8y3
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: But a quick look at the ragas and you can see many are named after non-Vedic gods like Bhairava, etc... But, can you post any solid evidence that the darshanas and upadevas claimed by MMY are NOT related to the Vedas? I suggest you take a gander at dhanur veda. It's all Shaivite. That's one of the reasons Mahesh had such a hard time and was never able to get authentic marma-chikitsa, as the Shavite family lines that held them, wouldn't sell them. Or at least that's what the Maharishi Ayurveda docs were told! Re: Gandharva-veda, of which no actual gandharva-veda texts survive: It is a well-known fact that Matanga was a great follower of Tantra known as Agamas. According to him, the Gandharva Veda originated from the Lord Maheshvara [i.e. Shiva]: He follows the Agama Grantha while explaining the place and nucleus of Svaras. - The Ragas in Indian Classical Music by Anupam Mahajam
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? For whatever reason he went by that name (and I have read all the various stories of whether the name was conferred officially or people just started calling him that, or whatever the reason,) it was his name. Its just disrespectful. No matter what what you think of him, it was his name. By you (and others here) calling him Mahesh, it implies a variety of things, such as he wasn't really a maharishi. or he wasn't really a saint or even I know better who really was etc. Give it up. Do you really think he did not help many, many people in the world and therefore calling him a saint (which is the common expression for any of these types of people in India) is not justified? Look, many people think Sai Baba is a child molester, but they still call him Sai baba (not his given name). Many people think Swami Muktananda was having sex with his young female disciples, but they still call him Swami Muktananda (not his given name either). I think many of us here have some issues with some of the things he has done, or the way he ran his organization etc., but still there is nothing wrong with showing some respect. Frankly, it makes you seem arrogant. No matter what you think of him, show some respect On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: But a quick look at the ragas and you can see many are named after non-Vedic gods like Bhairava, etc... But, can you post any solid evidence that the darshanas and upadevas claimed by MMY are NOT related to the Vedas? I suggest you take a gander at dhanur veda. It's all Shaivite. That's one of the reasons Mahesh had such a hard time and was never able to get authentic marma-chikitsa, as the Shavite family lines that held them, wouldn't sell them. Or at least that's what the Maharishi Ayurveda docs were told! Re: Gandharva-veda, of which no actual gandharva-veda texts survive: It is a well-known fact that Matanga was a great follower of Tantra known as Agamas. According to him, the Gandharva Veda originated from the Lord Maheshvara [i.e. Shiva]: He follows the Agama Grantha while explaining the place and nucleus of Svaras. - The Ragas in Indian Classical Music by Anupam Mahajam
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
But, can you post any solid evidence that the darshanas and upadevas claimed by MMY are NOT related to the Vedas? Vaj wrote: I suggest you take a gander at dhanur veda. Apparently there have been Indian armies since the Rig Veda was composed. However, the 'Dhanurveda' dates from only the 15th century, so it is probably post-Vedic. The theories behind yoga, ayurveda and tantra, such as kundalini, prana, nadis, and chakras, are all present in the Vedas, according to David Frawley.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, at_man_and_brahman at_man_and_brahman@ wrote: In the 1965 book Vedic Mathematics by Sankaracharya Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji, Gandharva Veda is listed repeatedly as one of the four upavedas, corresponding to Sama Veda. This is exactly as Maharishi outlined it. The other upavedas are Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, and Dhanurveda. There are two gandharva-veda texts in Vedic reserve: 1. saMgiitaratnaakara by Shaarn.gadeva(?) 2. naaTyashaastra, or something like that. A sample from the 1: sa riri gagaga mamamama papapapapa dhadhadhadhadhadha ninininininini saMgiitaratnaakara, page 65, last three rows: taDitsadRshajihvaM 4 hau [how] hau hau hau hau hau hau hau 5 bahuruupa vadanaM dhanaghoranaadaM 6 hau hau hau hau hau hau hau hau 7 om om hraaM rauM hauM hauM hauM 8 nRmuNDamaNDitaM 9 huuM [hoom] huuM kaha kaha huuM huuM
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... L
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? I do almost always refer to him as Barack, rarely President Obama, but probably just because I like the sound of his name. O'bama is just too Irish sounding. :-) And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... I believe it was the Kropinski interview with the Shankaracharya of the north where I first heard it. Then others who also called him Mahesh, it was typically because they actually found it offensive that he called himself a Maharishi, a very grandiose title, very presumptuous. Anyhew, I'm with the guy in the lion chair on this one. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? And if he did, what do you think would happen? Think he'd get arrested? And why would it be disrespectful for someone to address someone else by their actual name? BTW, I don't nor ever have agreed with Vaj's Mahesh bit, I think it shows a willingness to try and take someone down by any means possible, and Maharishi seems simple and appropriate and it's what he called himself. But as far as public officials go, we live in a democracy and people routinely introduce themselves as Dick Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? And if he did, what do you think would happen? Think he'd get arrested? And why would it be disrespectful for someone to address someone else by their actual name? BTW, I don't nor ever have agreed with Vaj's Mahesh bit, I think it shows a willingness to try and take someone down by any means possible, and Maharishi seems simple and appropriate and it's what he called himself. But as far as public officials go, we live in a democracy and people routinely introduce themselves as Dick Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. It's pretty simple IMO. Did you live up to the name you gave yourself, did you embody that name? Or was it a way to take advantage? Are you insulting an entire group of people (devout Hindus) or someone like Ramana or insert legit rishi? Is there any lack of reality behind it, even as a giggling Beatoid epithet we should collectively romanticize? Since the answer is clearly yes for me, it's a no brainer. That's without even considering the damage he's done. But different people have different ethics so YMMV. I'd make a real bad enabler.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Vaj wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 1:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? And if he did, what do you think would happen? Think he'd get arrested? And why would it be disrespectful for someone to address someone else by their actual name? BTW, I don't nor ever have agreed with Vaj's Mahesh bit, I think it shows a willingness to try and take someone down by any means possible, and Maharishi seems simple and appropriate and it's what he called himself. But as far as public officials go, we live in a democracy and people routinely introduce themselves as Dick Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. It's pretty simple IMO. Did you live up to the name you gave yourself, did you embody that name? Or was it a way to take advantage? Are you insulting an entire group of people (devout Hindus) or someone like Ramana or insert legit rishi? Is there any lack of reality behind it, even as a giggling Beatoid epithet we should collectively romanticize? Oh, please, Vj...you couldn't care less about devout Hindus, you're simply using it as a P/A way to take a swipe at MMY. Since the answer is clearly yes for me, it's a no brainer. That's without even considering the damage he's done. But different people have different ethics so YMMV. I'd make a real bad enabler. Another P/A swipe at me...nice try, buddy. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: It's pretty simple IMO. Did you live up to the name you gave yourself, did you embody that name? Or was it a way to take advantage? Are you insulting an entire group of people (devout Hindus) or someone like Ramana or insert legit rishi? Is there any lack of reality behind it, even as a giggling Beatoid epithet we should collectively romanticize? Oh, please, Vj...you couldn't care less about devout Hindus, you're simply using it as a P/A way to take a swipe at MMY. Not true. Devout or not devout actually, the legitimacy, or the detraction of legitimacy from these traditions means a lot to me. I do see important pathways for the future, some missing in western society. To have them eroded by very loud mainstream groups waving the we have all the answers flag, while lacking means or the sincerity, is an issue for me. Since the answer is clearly yes for me, it's a no brainer. That's without even considering the damage he's done. But different people have different ethics so YMMV. I'd make a real bad enabler. Another P/A swipe at me...nice try, buddy. What are you doing to rectify the situations within your reach then? It's hard for me to know. Perhaps your mere presence and your voice in your community is enough. But that's beyond what I can know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? I do almost always refer to him as Barack, rarely President Obama, but probably just because I like the sound of his name. O'bama is just too Irish sounding. :-) And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... I believe it was the Kropinski interview with the Shankaracharya of the north where I first heard it. Then others who also called him Mahesh, it was typically because they actually found it offensive that he called himself a Maharishi, a very grandiose title, very presumptuous. Anyhew, I'm with the guy in the lion chair on this one. :-) The specific Shankaracharya of the North that Kropinski talked to was in a battle for custody of the math with someone who was supporting MMY. TO cite HIM as an unbiased source for how SBS addressed MMY is beyond silly. The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? Someone who supported MMY or someone who was against that person? The answer isn't clearcut, IMHO. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: [...] And if he did, what do you think would happen? Think he'd get arrested? And why would it be disrespectful for someone to address someone else by their actual name? WEll, technicaly (unlike with MMY), it is the official mode of address to say President Obama or Mr PResident, but Michelle presumably gets dispensation... BTW, I don't nor ever have agreed with Vaj's Mahesh bit, I think it shows a willingness to try and take someone down by any means possible, and Maharishi seems simple and appropriate and it's what he called himself. But as far as public officials go, we live in a democracy and people routinely introduce themselves as Dick Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc. I was making fun of his explanation for why he chose to use Mahesh And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig lengli...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? I do almost always refer to him as Barack, rarely President Obama, but probably just because I like the sound of his name. O'bama is just too Irish sounding. :-) And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... I believe it was the Kropinski interview with the Shankaracharya of the north where I first heard it. Then others who also called him Mahesh, it was typically because they actually found it offensive that he called himself a Maharishi, a very grandiose title, very presumptuous. Anyhew, I'm with the guy in the lion chair on this one. :-) The specific Shankaracharya of the North that Kropinski talked to was in a battle for custody of the math with someone who was supporting MMY. TO cite HIM as an unbiased source for how SBS addressed MMY is beyond silly. The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? Someone who supported MMY or someone who was against that person? The answer isn't clearcut, IMHO. L. I never said it was how SBS addressed MMY. I said Swaroopananda himself addressed MMY as Maharishiji, not Mahesh.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Randy Meltzer rm...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, sparaig wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Randy Meltzer wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Hey vaj, Why do you insist on calling Maharishi, Mahesh? I don't consider him a Maharishi or a Yogi--and that's what Swami Brahmananda Saraswati called him, someone I respect. I'll defer to SBS and other Hindu sages I respect. Eh, you have an interesting perspective Michelle Obama calls him Barack, so that's what you should call the POTUS also? I do almost always refer to him as Barack, rarely President Obama, but probably just because I like the sound of his name. O'bama is just too Irish sounding. :-) And as for what SBS called him, seems to me that you probably have no idea unless Paul Mason has documented some conversation or speech where SBS refers to his secretary as Mahesh in public... I believe it was the Kropinski interview with the Shankaracharya of the north where I first heard it. Then others who also called him Mahesh, it was typically because they actually found it offensive that he called himself a Maharishi, a very grandiose title, very presumptuous. Anyhew, I'm with the guy in the lion chair on this one. :-) The specific Shankaracharya of the North that Kropinski talked to was in a battle for custody of the math with someone who was supporting MMY. TO cite HIM as an unbiased source for how SBS addressed MMY is beyond silly. The other Shankarakcharya of the North, the one mentioned by name in Anandama Moi's online cv, told MY friend ( a prominent Hindu/sanskrit scholar) that MMY would have been his first choice as his successor but for the caste issue. Who you going to believe? Someone who supported MMY or someone who was against that person? The answer isn't clearcut, IMHO. L. I never said it was how SBS addressed MMY. I said Swaroopananda himself addressed MMY as Maharishiji, not Mahesh. I don't know how SBS addressed MMY either. My friend Anoop Chandola had an opportunity to meet with either one of the rival Shankaracharyas of Jyotir Math and ended up visiting with Swami Satchananda (sp) Saraswati. He asked whether the Maharishi he was with the Beatles was legit or not and the reply was Let me put it this way: he would have been my choice as my successor but they wouldn't allow it due to the caste laws. No-one denies that MMY was controversial, not even those who had the highest respect for him. L.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, at_man_and_brahman wrote: In the 1965 book Vedic Mathematics by Sankaracharya Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji, Gandharva Veda is listed repeatedly as one of the four upavedas, corresponding to Sama Veda. This is exactly as Maharishi outlined it. The other upavedas are Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, and Dhanurveda. You do realize that the bulk of Ayur-veda, most of sthapatya-veda and all of dhanurveda are pre-vedic adoptions, right? You do also realize that a clearly Vaishnavite Shankaracharya, named Krishna, possibly could not represent a more biased source against the origin of these sciences, right? They said it, so it must be true, is that the tack you're taking? Funny, that's what just about everybody seems to say, not just Tirthaji. Except you, Vaj, of course. You've got quite a job ahead of you, setting them all straight.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Gandharva Veda, per a previous Sankaracharya
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:40 PM, at_man_and_brahman wrote: In the 1965 book Vedic Mathematics by Sankaracharya Swami Sri Bharati Krishna Tirthaji, Gandharva Veda is listed repeatedly as one of the four upavedas, corresponding to Sama Veda. This is exactly as Maharishi outlined it. The other upavedas are Ayurveda, Sthapatya Veda, and Dhanurveda. You do realize that the bulk of Ayur-veda, most of sthapatya-veda and all of dhanurveda are pre-vedic adoptions, right? You do also realize that a clearly Vaishnavite Shankaracharya, named Krishna, possibly could not represent a more biased source against the origin of these sciences, right? They said it, so it must be true, is that the tack you're taking? Funny, that's what just about everybody seems to say, not just Tirthaji. Except you, Vaj, of course. You've got quite a job ahead of you, setting them all straight. Vaj, Let me see if I have this straight. You are unwilling to trust the authority of one of the last century's most knowledgeable Indian scholars (per the whole chapter about him in Autobiography of a Yogi) to answer the basic question of whether Gandharva Veda has a legitimate relationship to the Vedas, but you are willing to trust Rick's opinion, per your question below? Rick's really in to Indian music, maybe he knows? Perhaps the above-named Sankaracharya, despite his Vaishnavite leanings, was also really in to Indian music, and also, therefore, a worthy source for a definitive answer.
