Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Angela Mailander]

When it comes to philosophy of language, the literary theories that grow out of 
that, and the various critical approaches that grow out of literary theories, I 
do believe you're out of your depths, Judy.

- Original Message 
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 12:26:33 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

mailander111@ ... wrote:

snip

 

 Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while 

back--which, by the way, she has not seen in any full sense.  Hamlet 

is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic to have 

seen that.  



Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in

the '40s; Olivier's film version of Hamlet

was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's Hamlet

and Oedipus. It's an approach that adds some

very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat

of a stretch since there are no explicit 

references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it 

doesn't do violence to the text of the play.



Quite unlike what you deigned to tell us of your

interpretation, which was based on a gross 

misreading of a couple of lines in a very long

play, as I pointed out at the time and you were

completely unable to address.



That misreading was what I took violent issue

with, as you know, along with your utterly

absurd claim that the theme of Hamlet can be

understood as an elaboration of verse II:45 of

the Gita. I explained why that interpretation

was off the wall, in terms both of Hamlet and

of Shakespeare' s entire body of work, and you

had no response to that either.



You're entitled to see whatever you want to see

in any work of art. But when what you see isn't

native to the work itself, that isn't litcrit,

it's imaginative fantasy. Nothing wrong with

fantasy as long as it's not promoted as scholarly

literary criticism.






  







!--

#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--



!--

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--



!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, 
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--







Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 When it comes to philosophy of language, the literary theories
 that grow out of that, and the various critical approaches that 
 grow out of literary theories, I do believe you're out of your 
 depths, Judy.

Very, very weak response, Angela.

But absolutely typical of how you react when
you're challenged: with ad hominem but no
substance.

In other words, the response of of one who is
only posing as a scholar.


 From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 
 mailander111@ ... wrote:
 snip
  Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while
 back--which, by the way, she has not seen in any full sense. 
 Hamlet is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic 
 to have seen that.  
 
 Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in
 the '40s; Olivier's film version of Hamlet
 was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's Hamlet
 and Oedipus. It's an approach that adds some
 very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat
 of a stretch since there are no explicit 
 references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it 
 doesn't do violence to the text of the play.
 
 Quite unlike what you deigned to tell us of your
 interpretation, which was based on a gross 
 misreading of a couple of lines in a very long
 play, as I pointed out at the time and you were
 completely unable to address.
 
 That misreading was what I took violent issue
 with, as you know, along with your utterly
 absurd claim that the theme of Hamlet can be
 understood as an elaboration of verse II:45 of
 the Gita. I explained why that interpretation
 was off the wall, in terms both of Hamlet and
 of Shakespeare' s entire body of work, and you
 had no response to that either.
 
 You're entitled to see whatever you want to see
 in any work of art. But when what you see isn't
 native to the work itself, that isn't litcrit,
 it's imaginative fantasy. Nothing wrong with
 fantasy as long as it's not promoted as scholarly
 literary criticism.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Angela Mailander]

Yes, it is a weak response, I'm afraid. But there is no way I can educate you 
in this matter.  1) Your assessment of my comments are so full of errors and 
unwarranted assumptions, I don't know where to begin.  2) I cannot  educate you 
on these matters since  a) you would not submit to learn from me and b) I  
don't have the time or inclination.  c) you don't want to learn; you want to 
engage in argumentation that is not a friendly exchange of ideas, as you have 
shown.  So we shall leave it at the weak response.  

- Original Message 
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 9:57:14 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

mailander111@ ... wrote:



 When it comes to philosophy of language, the literary theories

 that grow out of that, and the various critical approaches that 

 grow out of literary theories, I do believe you're out of your 

 depths, Judy.



Very, very weak response, Angela.



But absolutely typical of how you react when

you're challenged: with ad hominem but no

substance.



In other words, the response of of one who is

only posing as a scholar.



 From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

 mailander111@ ... wrote:

 snip

  Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while

 back--which, by the way, she has not seen in any full sense. 

 Hamlet is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic 

 to have seen that.  

 

 Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in

 the '40s; Olivier's film version of Hamlet

 was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's Hamlet

 and Oedipus. It's an approach that adds some

 very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat

 of a stretch since there are no explicit 

 references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it 

 doesn't do violence to the text of the play.

 

 Quite unlike what you deigned to tell us of your

 interpretation, which was based on a gross 

 misreading of a couple of lines in a very long

 play, as I pointed out at the time and you were

 completely unable to address.

 

 That misreading was what I took violent issue

 with, as you know, along with your utterly

 absurd claim that the theme of Hamlet can be

 understood as an elaboration of verse II:45 of

 the Gita. I explained why that interpretation

 was off the wall, in terms both of Hamlet and

 of Shakespeare' s entire body of work, and you

 had no response to that either.

 

 You're entitled to see whatever you want to see

 in any work of art. But when what you see isn't

 native to the work itself, that isn't litcrit,

 it's imaginative fantasy. Nothing wrong with

 fantasy as long as it's not promoted as scholarly

 literary criticism.






  







!--

#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--



!--

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--



!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, 
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Yes, it is a weak response, I'm afraid. But there is no way I can 
educate you in this matter.  1) Your assessment of my comments are so 
full of errors and unwarranted assumptions, I don't know where to 
begin.

No, there aren't any errors in what I wrote. If
there were, you'd have pointed out at least one or
two of them as examples.

You could still do that, by the way, if you really
thought there were errors. But in these and my
previous comments on your interpretation of Hamlet,
I was referring, as you know, to exactly what you
had written here, gross misreading of the verse and
all. My characterizations used almost your precise
words.

 2) I cannot  educate you on these matters since  a) you would not 
submit to learn from me and b) I  don't have the time or 
inclination.  c) you don't want to learn; you want to engage in 
argumentation that is not a friendly exchange of ideas, as you have 
shown.

Just excuses and more ad hominem. (Not that I
don't use ad hominem, but at least I back it up
with substance.)

  So we shall leave it at the weak response.  

Yup.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Angela Mailander]

Yup, we shall indeed leave it at that. 

- Original Message 
From: authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 1:05:57 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

mailander111@ ... wrote:



 Yes, it is a weak response, I'm afraid. But there is no way I can 

educate you in this matter.  1) Your assessment of my comments are so 

full of errors and unwarranted assumptions, I don't know where to 

begin.



No, there aren't any errors in what I wrote. If

there were, you'd have pointed out at least one or

two of them as examples.



You could still do that, by the way, if you really

thought there were errors. But in these and my

previous comments on your interpretation of Hamlet,

I was referring, as you know, to exactly what you

had written here, gross misreading of the verse and

all. My characterizations used almost your precise

words.



 2) I cannot  educate you on these matters since  a) you would not 

submit to learn from me and b) I  don't have the time or 

inclination.  c) you don't want to learn; you want to engage in 

argumentation that is not a friendly exchange of ideas, as you have 

shown.



Just excuses and more ad hominem. (Not that I

don't use ad hominem, but at least I back it up

with substance.)



  So we shall leave it at the weak response.  



Yup.






  







!--

#ygrp-mkp{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
#ygrp-mkp hr{
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#ygrp-mkp #hd{
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
#ygrp-mkp #ads{
margin-bottom:10px;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad{
padding:0 0;}
#ygrp-mkp .ad a{
color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
--



!--

#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
font-family:Arial;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
--



!--

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, clean, 
sans-serif;}
#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
#ygrp-text{
font-family:Georgia;
}
#ygrp-text p{
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family:Arial;
clear:both;}
#ygrp-vitnav{
padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
#ygrp-vitnav a{
padding:0 1px;}
#ygrp-actbar{
clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
#ygrp-actbar .left{
float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
.bld{font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-grft{
font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
#ygrp-ft{
font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
padding:5px 0;
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
padding-bottom:10px;}

#ygrp-vital{
background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
#ygrp-vital #vithd{
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
#ygrp-vital ul{
padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
#ygrp-vital ul li{
list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
}
#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
font-weight:bold;}
#ygrp-vital a{
text-decoration:none;}

#ygrp-vital a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{
color:#999;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov{
padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
#ygrp-sponsor #nc{
background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad{
padding:8px 0;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
text-decoration:none;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
text-decoration:underline;}
#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
margin:0;}
o{font-size:0;}
.MsoNormal{
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#ygrp-text tt{
font-size:120%;}
blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
.replbq{margin:4;}
--







Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

 Maharishi says with no effort is lost the yogi attains his 
goal.!!

 Wealth can be created effortlessly.

Maharishi is presenting an alternative to human beings which is not 
appreciated by people today or in the past.  MMY's proposal can be 
justified using jyotish principles as well.  Specifically,

MMY proposes that meditation can bring benefits to anyone.  This can 
seen in the 12th house which represents meditation.  But more 
commonly the 12th house represents the field of loss, as in money and 
even thoughts.  Hence, it signifies detachment as well.

By increasing the strength of the 12th house, the argala principle 
increases the strength of the 11th house and the 2nd house.  The 11th 
house represents friends and unearned gains.  The 2nd house 
represents family, money and good eating habits.

Thus, those who follow MMY's paradigm will gain much in friends and 
monetary gains, as well as good family relationship and food, which 
includes the avoidance of drugs and alcohol.

   
 Sure, Wealth can be ill-gotten by murdering or cheating or 
Genocide.!!

 This superiority complex is the reason for the hatred for 
Jews all over the world.

 Probably one of the causes for the Holocaust and oppression 
they faced.??

I believe the bible reveals the hidden message of the passage in 
question.  That is, although one has to earn a living and earn one's 
keep, one does not necessarily have to kill others to accomplish the 
goal.  Undoubtedly, Moses wrote the narrative to show the victorious 
battles the Hebrews fought in Canaan.  But from our vantage point, 
the passage also reveals the blindness of the Hebrews in their world 
view.  Thus, the message of wisdom is still revealed to us, although 
in an off-handed way.

The Hebrews were not the only ones that committed these barbaric 
acts.  Other peoples in the ancient world have committed hedious 
acts, such as the Aztecs and the Mayas of the New World who practiced 
human sacrifices to appease the gods.  There is also a jyotish 
explanation for this, but that's for another day.

So, violence and barbaric acts are common attributes in the ancient 
world.  We should not blame the Hebrews for the ills in the world.  I 
believe this is the same type of reasoning that impelled Hitler to 
kill millions of Jews during WWII.

The common theme here is that people from the ancient and modern 
world are still ignorant of the potential of being human.  Thus, even 
today, genocide still exists in forms of tribal and religious 
warfare, and even abortion.

These ignorant acts create bad karma that will return to the peoples 
who committed them in the near or distant future.  Perhaps, this is 
one of the reasons why tribal and religious warfares are not going to 
end any time soon.



 
 John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:17:51 -
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek


   It is likely that this story was a true account of the Hebrews' 
acts 
 in Canaan. From our perspective, the act was barbaric. But from the 
 teaching perspective, the act showed that the Hebrews fought the 
 enemy and vanquished them.
 
 We can understand the significance of this story more by using some 
 principles in jyotish. Specifically, fighting with the enemy is 
 signified by the 6th house, the field of battle. The 6th house is 
 considered one of the artha, or wealth houses, along with the 10th 
 house of career and the 2nd house of money. Thus, these are called 
 the trikona (triune relationship) houses for wealth. In effect, the 
 story is saying that one has to struggle in order to earn a living 
 and make money.
 
 From our perspective, we can say that the Hebrews could have 
suceeded 
 in accomplishing the same thing without killing innocent people. 
But 
 then again who am I to revise Hebrew history?



 

 -
 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
Try it now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

 Krishna and Balrama did not fight.  His clan became drunk 
and started fighting and killing each other.

 Balrama went into the state of yogam and vanished instantly.

 Krishna went into a forest to lie down.  A hunter mistook 
him for a deer and shot him with an arrow which he found inside a 
fish.  Then Krishna also entered mahasamadhi.

 The story is very complicated and can't be explained in a 
forum like this.

Krishna and Balarama did not fight in the Battle of Kurukshetra, 
which was the theme of the Bhagavad Gita.  Krishna was merely an 
observer and was acting as the charioteer for Arjuna during the 
battle.  Balarama was not mentioned to be present during this battle.

There are many ways to interpret as to why Krishna did not fight.  
For one, it could be that Krishna represents his detachment from the 
entire battle and that he was with Arjuna's side only because they 
were friends.

During the last battle mentioned in Shrimad Bhagavatam, both Krishna 
and Balarama participated in the mayhem.  We can further interpret 
this passage in many ways.  One interpretation could be that even if 
you were divine you are still subjected to the effects of karma while 
taking on a human body here of earth.  Thus, the message is that one 
has to perform one's duty or actions while in the state of yoga even 
to the extent of battle to defend what is right.




 John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:56:06 -
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek


   From my own reading of the Shrimad Bhagavatam (SB), I am as 
puzzled 
 as you are in interpreting the passages. There is another story in 
 SB which occurred after the Battle of Kurukshetra. In the story, 
 Krishna was leading his dynasty to another land in order to leave 
his 
 kingdom at the time because he sensed bad tidings that were to come.
 
 Along the way, one of his relatives started fighting with another 
 which ended up in a all out battle among his kindred. Krishna and 
 his brother participated in the battle and eventually killed all of 
 their relatives in the process.
 
 After the battle, Balarama, the brother, sat down to rest, 
meditated 
 and went into mahasamadhi. Similarly, Krishna rested and 
disappeared 
 from earth.
 
 What can we say? I can only refer you to the commentary that MMY 
 made regarding the battle of Kurukshetra. I believe MMY is saying 
 that the story teaches us to perform actions while in samadhi. In 
 other words, we can only control our action and not the fruits of 
it 
 (stand up and fight!). And that karma is mysterious, specifically 
 the events that lead one to battle.
 
 Also, see the reply I made to feste and doreflex regarding my 
jyotish 
 interpretation to their comments.
 


 

 -
 Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
Try it now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Richard J. Williams]

John wrote:
 Krishna and Balrama did not fight.

According to Jean Varenne, in his book entitled
'Yoga' there are three Krishnas in Indian mythology:

The baby Krishna, son of Vasudeva and Devaki; 
the Krishna of Brindaban, the lover of Radha; 
and the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita.

The myth of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita becomes 
clearer when we know that the chariots (ratha) we 
read about in Rig Veda are always military vehicles. 

Such contexts have the advantage of emphasizing 
action and restraint that have remained fundamental 
throughout history. It is from such a battle chariot 
that Krishna, as the intelligent agent, instructs 
Arjuna in yoga, and their dialogue is the 'Bhagavad 
Gita'. 

The battle chariot belonged to the aristocrat in 
Ancient India; those wealthy enough to afford one, 
and its owner was the one who fought in it, usually 
as the archer. This light but rather inadequately 
harnassed vehicle (the horse collar had not yet been 
invented) was very difficult to handle, which 
conferred great prestige on skilled charioteers. 

The guild of sutas, i.e. chariot drivers, constituted 
a high-ranking jati belonging to the varna of the 
kshatriyas. Vishnu, as Krishna, incarnated himself 
as the driver of Arjuna's chariot (Varenne 88). 

Thus the Atman is the supreme inner-controller, as 
the archer is the owner of the chariot. The driver 
is intellegence, buddhi, the laison agent. 

'The body is like a chariot 
of which the soul is the owner; 
the inteligence is its driver, 
the mind plays the part of the reins; 
as for the horses, those are the senses; 
the world is their arena.' (Katha Upanishad) 

And here lies a paradox: for we thus have in Bhagavad 
Gita, Krishna, the driver, or intelligence, revealing 
the truth to the Atman?

Work cited: 

Yoga 
By Jean Varenne 
University of Chicago Press 

Other titles of interest:

'Love Song of the Dark Lord'
by John Stratton Hawley  Barbara Stoler Miller 
Columbia University Press, 1997 

'Alternative Krishnas: Regional And Vernacular Variations 
On A Hindu Deity'
by Guy L. Beck
State University of New York Press, 2005

 
'The Play of God: Visions of the Life of Krishna'
by Devi Vanamali  Eknath Easwaran
Blue Dove Press, 1995 

'Dance of Divine Love: India's Classic Sacred Love Story: 
The Rasa Lila of Krishna
by Graham M. Schweig
Princeton University Press, 2005 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I figured in this forum, I could just state the interpretation in 
outline form.  I have published on this (in a peer reviewed journal), 
and in that essay, I spelled things out much more fully with 
references etc.  The interpretation is definitely in tune with Vedic 
science, but more to the point, it is also in tune with the 
philosophies that were current when the play was written.  When I 
have taught literature at the university level, I often used that 
approach.  I didn't call it Vedic science because that would not 
fly.  But the four basic tenets of Huxley's Perennial Philosophy do 
just the same thing. They provide students with a conceptual 
framework they can use to do their own interpretation of literature.  
It's amazing how well that works as a fundamental theory for literary 
interpretation.  
 
 As for where the Greek gods are now, I'm sure they are alive and 
well to the extent that they had names that corresponded to some 
subtle reality.  If wisdom exists, then so does Athena.  She is named 
Saraswati in the Hindu pantheon, but we can assume that the same 
goddess is meant, don't you think? 

Good point.  I think this is what is unique with MMY's writings in 
that he is able to put meaning to the ancient dieties in India, which 
approximate those in Greece, in light of modern discoveries and 
scientific thoughts.  The ancient dieties have become archetypes of 
the human being's potential and latent qualities.  For example,

In jyotish, the Sun or Surya (perhaps Apollo in Greek mythology) 
represents heat, leadership, and the government.  A person who is 
born with the Sun in the first house will more likely possess the 
quality of the Sun.  That is, the person will have a pitta (hot) body 
constitution.  If the person is male, he will have more likely have 
thin hair on the head or balding due to the heat of his body.  But 
the person will be a natural born leadern and will likely succeed in 
working for the government or be in politics.

For this reason, I am fascinated by the potential that is inherent in 
being human.  Is possible that we are more than a byproduct of a 
random universe?  Is it possible that humans can attain immortality 
and divinity?




 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

We're impressed with your scholarly reply on this matter.  I believe 
your thoughts address the point that I'm trying to convey.  


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 John wrote:
  Krishna and Balrama did not fight.
 
 According to Jean Varenne, in his book entitled
 'Yoga' there are three Krishnas in Indian mythology:
 
 The baby Krishna, son of Vasudeva and Devaki; 
 the Krishna of Brindaban, the lover of Radha; 
 and the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita.
 
 The myth of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita becomes 
 clearer when we know that the chariots (ratha) we 
 read about in Rig Veda are always military vehicles. 
 
 Such contexts have the advantage of emphasizing 
 action and restraint that have remained fundamental 
 throughout history. It is from such a battle chariot 
 that Krishna, as the intelligent agent, instructs 
 Arjuna in yoga, and their dialogue is the 'Bhagavad 
 Gita'. 
 
 The battle chariot belonged to the aristocrat in 
 Ancient India; those wealthy enough to afford one, 
 and its owner was the one who fought in it, usually 
 as the archer. This light but rather inadequately 
 harnassed vehicle (the horse collar had not yet been 
 invented) was very difficult to handle, which 
 conferred great prestige on skilled charioteers. 
 
 The guild of sutas, i.e. chariot drivers, constituted 
 a high-ranking jati belonging to the varna of the 
 kshatriyas. Vishnu, as Krishna, incarnated himself 
 as the driver of Arjuna's chariot (Varenne 88). 
 
 Thus the Atman is the supreme inner-controller, as 
 the archer is the owner of the chariot. The driver 
 is intellegence, buddhi, the laison agent. 
 
 'The body is like a chariot 
 of which the soul is the owner; 
 the inteligence is its driver, 
 the mind plays the part of the reins; 
 as for the horses, those are the senses; 
 the world is their arena.' (Katha Upanishad) 
 
 And here lies a paradox: for we thus have in Bhagavad 
 Gita, Krishna, the driver, or intelligence, revealing 
 the truth to the Atman?
 
 Work cited: 
 
 Yoga 
 By Jean Varenne 
 University of Chicago Press 
 
 Other titles of interest:
 
 'Love Song of the Dark Lord'
 by John Stratton Hawley  Barbara Stoler Miller 
 Columbia University Press, 1997 
 
 'Alternative Krishnas: Regional And Vernacular Variations 
 On A Hindu Deity'
 by Guy L. Beck
 State University of New York Press, 2005
 
  
 'The Play of God: Visions of the Life of Krishna'
 by Devi Vanamali  Eknath Easwaran
 Blue Dove Press, 1995 
 
 'Dance of Divine Love: India's Classic Sacred Love Story: 
 The Rasa Lila of Krishna
 by Graham M. Schweig
 Princeton University Press, 2005

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament is
 something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a fundamentalist
 once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter of
 Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory answer. 


Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:

- Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill
all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 

When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have you
saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
alive for yourselves. 

So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
virgins -- Wow!

~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[feste37]

The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament is
something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a fundamentalist
once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter of
Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory answer. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Angela, you've made an excellent point and observation here.  The 
 ancients were not as unsophisticated as some people may think.  For 
 example,
 
 Among biblical scholars, Moses is credited for writing the first five 
 books of the Old Testament, which includes Genesis where the story of 
 the Garden of Eden is narrated.  We can assume that many of the 
 stories in this book was handed down by oral tradition among the 
 Hebrews.  And, it was Moses who wrote them in text for preservation 
 of the knowledge.
 
 Christians are divided on how to interpret this story.  The Catholic 
 Church regards the story to be a myth, but considers the moral and 
 faith message in the story to be factual.  However, some Christian 
 denominations accept the story to be literally true.  Hence, we have 
 a controversy in the USA regarding the teaching Darwin's theory of 
 evolution in public schools.
 
 In the Hindu texts, stories are narrated and are embedded with 
 symbols which corroborate the message inteded by the author.  
 Specifically, there is a story in the Shrimad Bhagavatam of two 
 guards in heaven by the name of Jaya and Vijaya.  These guards 
 prevented the entry of the four Kumaras, who looked like children but 
 are in reality very old and ancient seers, and who wanted to enter 
 the gates of heaven.  Because of this act the two guards were cursed 
 by the Kumaras to live their next three lives on earth.
 
 Many astrologers believe that there is much more to this story than 
 meets the eye.  In a deeper sense, this story actually is presenting 
 a jyotish principle which states that the entry to heaven is shown in 
 the jyotish chart by the lunar node, Rahu and Ketu.  And, salvation 
 can be attained by the observation of the four pillars of life, i.e. 
 dharma, artha, kama and moksha.
 
 There are many stories like these in the Hindu texts which shows that 
 the ancients were very meticulous in conveying their messages through 
 words and symbols.  Their stories cannot be regarded as simple myths 
 and fairy tales.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  - Original Message 
  From: tertonzeno tertonzeno@
  To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:54:11 PM
  Subject: [FairfieldLife] blame it on Star Trek
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  A Rabbi writes (USA Today blog section):
  
  
  
  Rabbi wrote: 
  
  Actually, come to think of it, Star Trek has definitely contributed 
  
  to my rejection of religious principles!!
  
  
  
  I remember the first time I saw Who Mourns for Adonais - wherein 
  
  the erstwhile crew of the Enterprise (A, if you will…) stumble 
 upon 
  
  the lonely God Apollo, the last of the remaining figures of Greek 
  
  mythology after they all retired' to a planet far away. 
  
  
  
  I remember thinking, yeah, that makes as much sense as what those 
  
  Biblical stories claim about Yaweh talking with Adam in the Garden 
 of 
  
  Eden or walking with Moses in the desert.
  
  
  
  But, as I said earlier, I grew up in Sci-Fi household †accepting 
 of 
  
  science and rejecting the myths and fairy-tales of scientifically 
  
  illiterate cultures as just that: make believe stories!!
  
  
  
  So blame it on Star Trek!!
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  !--
  
  
  
  #ygrp-mkp{
  border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 
 0px;padding:0px 14px;}
  #ygrp-mkp hr{
  border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
  #ygrp-mkp #hd{
  color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-
 height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
  #ygrp-mkp #ads{
  margin-bottom:10px;}
  #ygrp-mkp .ad{
  padding:0 0;}
  #ygrp-mkp .ad a{
  color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
  --
  
  
  
  !--
  
  
  
  #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
  font-family:Arial;}
  #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
  margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
  #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
  margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
  --
  
  
  
  !--
  
  
  
  #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean, 
 sans-serif;}
  #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
  #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica, 
 clean, sans-serif;}
  #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
  #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
  #ygrp-text{
  font-family:Georgia;}
  #ygrp-text p{
  margin:0 0 1em 0;}
  #ygrp-tpmsgs{
  font-family:Arial;clear:both;}
  #ygrp-vitnav{
  padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
  #ygrp-vitnav a{
  padding:0 1px;}
  #ygrp-actbar{
  clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-
 align:right;}
  #ygrp-actbar .left{
  

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[curtisdeltablues]

 So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
 killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
 virgins -- Wow!

A waste of a lot of good MILFs if you ask me!  I enjoy reading about
Bible atrocities. When I hear people pointing to it as a moral
standard, I suspect they have never actually read the book all the way
through.  The Skeptic's Guide to the Bible has a whole chapter on
God's encouragement of mass murders.  There are many examples.  Great
bedtime reading.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament is
  something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a fundamentalist
  once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter of
  Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory answer. 
 
 
 Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
 
 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill
 all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
 
 When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have you
 saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
 kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
 women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
 alive for yourselves. 
 
 So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
 killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
 virgins -- Wow!
 
 ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Duveyoung]

If we interpret the Bible as some of us are wont to do with the Gita,
then Moses' genocidal actions must be at least compared to Arjuna's
mass killings -- that is, they are spiritual tales meant to symbolize
psychological battles fought.

It's hard to think of an archer knocking down 10,000 arrows out of the
sky coming at him, but it is child's play for each of us to make a
decision -- I will take/choose the right side road at this particular
fork in the road. -- that obviates 10,000 wrong cul-de-paths that
might have been taken if the fork's left road was chosen. 

See?

The virgin girl children that were garnered could be 32,000 neurons
that would be fleshed out into pure innocence networkings in the
brain.  

Be here now, folks; all around us are tales that can be psychological
instructions of deep merit.  Even George Bush is an example that all
of us can identify with -- who hasn't been a shameless doofus at one
point or another, or, in my case, for whole days, weeks, months and
years at a time?

See your inner George, avert the BushCo.

It's all good, but I sure don't like that notion on most dayscuz
it means I'll have to do heavy mental lifting to integrate and find my
balance.  And with the evil afoot these days, forgiving what's being
done by the tyrants requires the same wisdom that Christ had as they
pounded in the nails and He just looked at His tormentors with
Absolute Love.

Obviously, I have quite some way to go.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
  killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
  virgins -- Wow!
 
 A waste of a lot of good MILFs if you ask me!  I enjoy reading about
 Bible atrocities. When I hear people pointing to it as a moral
 standard, I suspect they have never actually read the book all the way
 through.  The Skeptic's Guide to the Bible has a whole chapter on
 God's encouragement of mass murders.  There are many examples.  Great
 bedtime reading.
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
  
   The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old
Testament is
   something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a
fundamentalist
   once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter of
   Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory answer. 
  
  
  Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
  
  - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill
  all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
  
  When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have you
  saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and
  kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
  women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
  alive for yourselves. 
  
  So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
  killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
  virgins -- Wow!
  
  ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If we interpret the Bible as some of us are wont to do with the Gita,
 then Moses' genocidal actions must be at least compared to Arjuna's
 mass killings -- that is, they are spiritual tales meant to symbolize
 psychological battles fought.
 
 It's hard to think of an archer knocking down 10,000 arrows out of the
 sky coming at him, but it is child's play for each of us to make a
 decision -- I will take/choose the right side road at this particular
 fork in the road. -- that obviates 10,000 wrong cul-de-paths that
 might have been taken if the fork's left road was chosen. 
 
 See?

I agree. Once you drop that claim of divine origins, there is all
sorts of great stuff in scriptures.  But MMY is as fundamentalist as
any Christian about the literal historical authenticity of the
Mahabharata.   Harry Potter books can also be used as a source for
metaphors.  But so far no one is killing other people while quoting
the justification from that book.

 
 The virgin girl children that were garnered could be 32,000 neurons
 that would be fleshed out into pure innocence networkings in the
 brain.  
 
 Be here now, folks; all around us are tales that can be
psychological  instructions of deep merit.

I think you are using it as a metaphor generator rather than a source
for knowledge.  This is very different from how it is used in
religions.  You can view scripture as literature, but when it is
viewed as God's instruction manual for living it causes problems IMO. 


  Even George Bush is an example that all
 of us can identify with -- who hasn't been a shameless doofus at one
 point or another, or, in my case, for whole days, weeks, months and
 years at a time?
 
 See your inner George, avert the BushCo.
 
 It's all good, but I sure don't like that notion on most dayscuz
 it means I'll have to do heavy mental lifting to integrate and find my
 balance.  And with the evil afoot these days, forgiving what's being
 done by the tyrants requires the same wisdom that Christ had as they
 pounded in the nails and He just looked at His tormentors with
 Absolute Love.

Is this on youtube?  I'm not sure this is how that all went down.

 
 Obviously, I have quite some way to go.

Join the group.  

 
 Edg
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
   So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
   killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
   virgins -- Wow!
  
  A waste of a lot of good MILFs if you ask me!  I enjoy reading about
  Bible atrocities. When I hear people pointing to it as a moral
  standard, I suspect they have never actually read the book all the way
  through.  The Skeptic's Guide to the Bible has a whole chapter on
  God's encouragement of mass murders.  There are many examples.  Great
  bedtime reading.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
   
The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old
 Testament is
something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a
 fundamentalist
once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last
chapter of
Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory
answer. 
   
   
   Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
   
   - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites.
They kill
   all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
   
   When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says:
Have you
   saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little
ones, and
   kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
   women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
   alive for yourselves. 
   
   So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
   killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
   virgins -- Wow!
   
   ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Angela Mailander]

Just for the record, the word myth is used in the popular culture to mean 
untruth.  In my profession, the word is used to refer to a story that has 
significant truth value of the kind that is accessible only through 
interpretation as symbol, metaphor, or anagoge--usually some combination of 
those three.  Prophesy is usually expressed in the form of myth also.  A mother 
of rough-housing kids might say, There will be tears if you keep this up.  
This is prophesy.  If she said, Billy will bite Johnny on the nose, then that 
would be fortune telling.  Prophesy couches the future in some symbolic 
terms--tears in this case, which is probably an example of anagoge since  
Johnny might actually cry if he got bit.  But in any case, the prophesy usually 
has a restrictive clause: if you keep this up.

In Oedipus the prophesy is You will kill your father and marry your mother.  
If those terms are symbols then father is a symbol for God or the Absolute 
(depending on your predilections) and mother is a symbol of nature--marrying 
nature would be an entanglement with it, or as this crowd would put it, a 
severe lack of detachment.  The if you keep this up part is often left out of 
most re-tellings of the story.  Oedipus seeks out the oracle in order to learn 
who his parents are.  The oracle doesn't answer his question and instead 
delivers the famous prophesy, you'll kill dad and marry mom.  The oracle 
always speaks in symbolic terms (it was set up that way) of what a present 
trend will lead to if continued.  So we have to conclude that in some way the 
oracle has information about Oedipus that allows her to see that he has 
already killed dad and married mom in a symbolic sense.  How does she know?  
Well, here comes a very young prince who's
 obviously had all the advantages of money and power.  Yet he is not content 
with his position which includes a King and a Queen acting in loco parentis for 
him.  He has parents who love him and care for him, in other words--so what if 
they're not his parents in a physical sense--they are in a spiritual sense.  He 
also has responsibilities as the heir to the throne, responsibilities which he 
is most definitely shirking at the moment--he's left home to go on a dangerous 
journey to find information rather than truth.

Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while back--which, 
by the way, she has not seen in any full sense.  Hamlet is full of references 
to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic to have seen that.  

- Original Message 
From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:58:00 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek









  



--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander 

mailander111@ ... wrote:



 You are assuming that ancient cultures interpreted their myths 

literally, as you seem to do, but this is not the case.  The play 

Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles deals with this issue (among others) 

Oedipus believes the myths (and the oracle), taking both literally as 

a young man.  But when he gets older, he rejects them all because, 

like any thinking adult, he figures out that they cannot be true in 

any literal sense.  It does not occur to him, however, to seek their 

truth in spiritual rather than factual terms.  That, in fact, is one 

definition of his blindness, which becomes literal because it was a 

precondition of his mind and consciousness.  So, as far back as 429 

BC, ancient Greeks understood this situation.  Myth is not science 

and cannot be read or understood as such.  It is always false as 

such.  But that doesn't mean that it is incapable of communication 

great spiritual truths and insights.  We live in a fundamentalist 

age, and we could say that

  our culture suffers from the kind of blindness Oedipus also 

suffered from.  In that sense, the play is prophesy.  It is 

absolutely stunning that a Rabbi doesn't have the education to 

understand his own religious tradition as myth and rejects it on the 

grounds that it is not literal truth.  It was never meant as literal 

truth, and the only people who interpreted it as such were the 

uneducated masses.  A play like Oedipus was intended as 

an educational play.  It was also intended as a spiritual 

experience, but if taken literally, it is a set of unbelievable 

coincidences, even if it serves as grist for the psychologist' s mill.



Angela, you've made an excellent point and observation here.  The 

ancients were not as unsophisticated as some people may think.  For 

example,



Among biblical scholars, Moses is credited for writing the first five 

books of the Old Testament, which includes Genesis where the story of 

the Garden of Eden is narrated.  We can assume that many of the 

stories in this book was handed down by oral tradition among the 

Hebrews.  And, it was Moses who wrote them in text for preservation 

of the knowledge

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament 
is
 something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a 
fundamentalist
 once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter of
 Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory answer.

Joshua or the other disciples of Moses could have completed the story 
for him.  As such, we read in one of the books that Moses was not 
permitted by Yahweh to enter the Promised Land because of his 
disobedience in the desert.  Thus, Moses died without crossing the 
Jordan River.


 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote:
 
 
  Angela, you've made an excellent point and observation here.  The 
  ancients were not as unsophisticated as some people may think.  
For 
  example,
  
  Among biblical scholars, Moses is credited for writing the first 
five 
  books of the Old Testament, which includes Genesis where the 
story of 
  the Garden of Eden is narrated.  We can assume that many of the 
  stories in this book was handed down by oral tradition among the 
  Hebrews.  And, it was Moses who wrote them in text for 
preservation 
  of the knowledge.
  
  Christians are divided on how to interpret this story.  The 
Catholic 
  Church regards the story to be a myth, but considers the moral 
and 
  faith message in the story to be factual.  However, some 
Christian 
  denominations accept the story to be literally true.  Hence, we 
have 
  a controversy in the USA regarding the teaching Darwin's theory 
of 
  evolution in public schools.
  
  In the Hindu texts, stories are narrated and are embedded with 
  symbols which corroborate the message inteded by the author.  
  Specifically, there is a story in the Shrimad Bhagavatam of two 
  guards in heaven by the name of Jaya and Vijaya.  These guards 
  prevented the entry of the four Kumaras, who looked like children 
but 
  are in reality very old and ancient seers, and who wanted to 
enter 
  the gates of heaven.  Because of this act the two guards were 
cursed 
  by the Kumaras to live their next three lives on earth.
  
  Many astrologers believe that there is much more to this story 
than 
  meets the eye.  In a deeper sense, this story actually is 
presenting 
  a jyotish principle which states that the entry to heaven is 
shown in 
  the jyotish chart by the lunar node, Rahu and Ketu.  And, 
salvation 
  can be attained by the observation of the four pillars of life, 
i.e. 
  dharma, artha, kama and moksha.
  
  There are many stories like these in the Hindu texts which shows 
that 
  the ancients were very meticulous in conveying their messages 
through 
  words and symbols.  Their stories cannot be regarded as simple 
myths 
  and fairy tales.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   - Original Message 
   From: tertonzeno tertonzeno@
   To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:54:11 PM
   Subject: [FairfieldLife] blame it on Star Trek
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
   
   
   
   A Rabbi writes (USA Today blog section):
   
   
   
   Rabbi wrote: 
   
   Actually, come to think of it, Star Trek has definitely 
contributed 
   
   to my rejection of religious principles!!
   
   
   
   I remember the first time I saw Who Mourns for Adonais - 
wherein 
   
   the erstwhile crew of the Enterprise (A, if you will…) 
stumble 
  upon 
   
   the lonely God Apollo, the last of the remaining figures of 
Greek 
   
   mythology after they all retired' to a planet far away. 
   
   
   
   I remember thinking, yeah, that makes as much sense as what 
those 
   
   Biblical stories claim about Yaweh talking with Adam in the 
Garden 
  of 
   
   Eden or walking with Moses in the desert.
   
   
   
   But, as I said earlier, I grew up in Sci-Fi household †
accepting 
  of 
   
   science and rejecting the myths and fairy-tales of 
scientifically 
   
   illiterate cultures as just that: make believe stories!!
   
   
   
   So blame it on Star Trek!!
   

   
   
   
   
   
   
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   !--
   
   
   
   #ygrp-mkp{
   border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 
  0px;padding:0px 14px;}
   #ygrp-mkp hr{
   border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
   #ygrp-mkp #hd{
   color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-
  height:122%;margin:10px 0px;}
   #ygrp-mkp #ads{
   margin-bottom:10px;}
   #ygrp-mkp .ad{
   padding:0 0;}
   #ygrp-mkp .ad a{
   color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}
   --
   
   
   
   !--
   
   
   
   #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
   font-family:Arial;}
   #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
   margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-
height:122%;}
   #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
   margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
   --
   
   
   
   !--
   
   
   
   #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, 
clean, 
  sans-serif;}
   #ygrp-mlmsg table 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old 
Testament is
  something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a 
fundamentalist
  once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter 
of
  Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory 
answer. 
 
 
 Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
 
 - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They 
kill
 all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
 
 When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have 
you
 saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, 
and
 kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
 women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
 alive for yourselves. 
 
 So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
 killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
 virgins -- Wow!
 
 ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54

It is likely that this story was a true account of the Hebrews' acts 
in Canaan.  From our perspective, the act was barbaric.  But from the 
teaching perspective, the act showed that the Hebrews fought the 
enemy and vanquished them.

We can understand the significance of this story more by using some 
principles in jyotish.  Specifically, fighting with the enemy is 
signified by the 6th house, the field of battle.  The 6th house is 
considered one of the artha, or wealth houses, along with the 10th 
house of career and the 2nd house of money.  Thus, these are called 
the trikona (triune relationship) houses for wealth.  In effect, the 
story is saying that one has to struggle in order to earn a living 
and make money.

From our perspective, we can say that the Hebrews could have suceeded 
in accomplishing the same thing without killing innocent people.  But 
then again who am I to revise Hebrew history?

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If we interpret the Bible as some of us are wont to do with the 
Gita,
 then Moses' genocidal actions must be at least compared to Arjuna's
 mass killings -- that is, they are spiritual tales meant to 
symbolize
 psychological battles fought.

From my own reading of the Shrimad Bhagavatam (SB), I am as puzzled 
as you are in interpreting the passages.  There is another story in 
SB which occurred after the Battle of Kurukshetra.  In the story, 
Krishna was leading his dynasty to another land in order to leave his 
kingdom at the time because he sensed bad tidings that were to come.

Along the way, one of his relatives started fighting with another 
which ended up in a all out battle among his kindred.  Krishna and 
his brother participated in the battle and eventually killed all of 
their relatives in the process.

After the battle, Balarama, the brother, sat down to rest, meditated 
and went into mahasamadhi.  Similarly, Krishna rested and disappeared 
from earth.

What can we say?  I can only refer you to the commentary that MMY 
made regarding the battle of Kurukshetra.  I believe MMY is saying 
that the story teaches us to perform actions while in samadhi.  In 
other words, we can only control our action and not the fruits of it 
(stand up and fight!).  And that karma is mysterious, specifically 
the events that lead one to battle.

Also, see the reply I made to feste and doreflex regarding my jyotish 
interpretation to their comments.


 
 It's hard to think of an archer knocking down 10,000 arrows out of 
the
 sky coming at him, but it is child's play for each of us to make a
 decision -- I will take/choose the right side road at this 
particular
 fork in the road. -- that obviates 10,000 wrong cul-de-paths that
 might have been taken if the fork's left road was chosen. 
 
 See?
 
 The virgin girl children that were garnered could be 32,000 neurons
 that would be fleshed out into pure innocence networkings in the
 brain.  
 
 Be here now, folks; all around us are tales that can be 
psychological
 instructions of deep merit.  Even George Bush is an example that all
 of us can identify with -- who hasn't been a shameless doofus at one
 point or another, or, in my case, for whole days, weeks, months and
 years at a time?
 
 See your inner George, avert the BushCo.
 
 It's all good, but I sure don't like that notion on most dayscuz
 it means I'll have to do heavy mental lifting to integrate and find 
my
 balance.  And with the evil afoot these days, forgiving what's being
 done by the tyrants requires the same wisdom that Christ had as they
 pounded in the nails and He just looked at His tormentors with
 Absolute Love.
 
 Obviously, I have quite some way to go.
 
 Edg
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
 curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
 
   So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) 
instructed,
   killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 
32,000
   virgins -- Wow!
  
  A waste of a lot of good MILFs if you ask me!  I enjoy reading 
about
  Bible atrocities. When I hear people pointing to it as a moral
  standard, I suspect they have never actually read the book all 
the way
  through.  The Skeptic's Guide to the Bible has a whole chapter on
  God's encouragement of mass murders.  There are many examples.  
Great
  bedtime reading.
  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ 
wrote:
   
The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old
 Testament is
something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a
 fundamentalist
once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last 
chapter of
Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory 
answer. 
   
   
   Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
   
   - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. 
They kill
   all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
   
   When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily 
says: Have you
   saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little 
ones, and
   kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all 
the
   women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, 
keep
   alive for yourselves. 
   
   So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) 
instructed,
   killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 
32,000
   virgins -- Wow!
   
   ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, do.rflex do.rflex@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
  
   The idea that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old 
 Testament is
   something that only fundamentalists believe. I asked a 
 fundamentalist
   once how Moses managed to write about his own death (last chapter 
 of
   Deuteronomy). Needless to say, I didn't get a satisfactory 
 answer. 
  
  
  Here's one of the more fun stories about that sweet guy Moses:
  
  - Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They 
 kill
  all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. 
  
  When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: Have 
 you
  saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, 
 and
  kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the
  women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep
  alive for yourselves. 
  
  So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed,
  killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000
  virgins -- Wow!
  
  ~~  Bible: Numbers 31:1-54
 
 It is likely that this story was a true account of the Hebrews' acts 
 in Canaan.  From our perspective, the act was barbaric.  But from the 
 teaching perspective, the act showed that the Hebrews fought the 
 enemy and vanquished them.
 
 We can understand the significance of this story more by using some 
 principles in jyotish.  Specifically, fighting with the enemy is 
 signified by the 6th house, the field of battle.  The 6th house is 
 considered one of the artha, or wealth houses, along with the 10th 
 house of career and the 2nd house of money.  Thus, these are called 
 the trikona (triune relationship) houses for wealth.  In effect, the 
 story is saying that one has to struggle in order to earn a living 
 and make money.


What a load of horse shit.


 
 From our perspective, we can say that the Hebrews could have suceeded 
 in accomplishing the same thing without killing innocent people.  But 
 then again who am I to revise Hebrew history?
 
 
 
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Just for the record, the word myth is used in the popular culture 
to mean untruth.  In my profession, the word is used to refer to a 
story that has significant truth value of the kind that is accessible 
only through interpretation as symbol, metaphor, or anagoge--usually 
some combination of those three.  Prophesy is usually expressed in 
the form of myth also.  A mother of rough-housing kids might 
say, There will be tears if you keep this up.  This is prophesy.  
If she said, Billy will bite Johnny on the nose, then that would be 
fortune telling.  Prophesy couches the future in some symbolic terms--
tears in this case, which is probably an example of anagoge since  
Johnny might actually cry if he got bit.  But in any case, the 
prophesy usually has a restrictive clause: if you keep this up.
 
 In Oedipus the prophesy is You will kill your father and marry 
your mother.  If those terms are symbols then father is a symbol 
for God or the Absolute (depending on your predilections) 
and mother is a symbol of nature--marrying nature would be an 
entanglement with it, or as this crowd would put it, a severe lack of 
detachment.

This is a wonderful analysis in context with vedic wisdom.  However, 
most readers unfamiliar with vedic ideas will not understand the 
import of this observation.  Perhaps, you should extract more nuggets 
of wisdom from western literature and analyze them in light of vedic 
paradigm.


  The if you keep this up part is often left out of most re-
tellings of the story.  Oedipus seeks out the oracle in order to 
learn who his parents are.  The oracle doesn't answer his question 
and instead delivers the famous prophesy, you'll kill dad and marry 
mom.  The oracle always speaks in symbolic terms (it was set up that 
way) of what a present trend will lead to if continued.  So we have 
to conclude that in some way the oracle has information about Oedipus 
that allows her to see that he has already killed dad and married 
mom in a symbolic sense.  How does she know?  Well, here comes a very 
young prince who's
  obviously had all the advantages of money and power.  Yet he is 
not content with his position which includes a King and a Queen 
acting in loco parentis for him.  He has parents who love him and 
care for him, in other words--so what if they're not his parents in a 
physical sense--they are in a spiritual sense.  He also has 
responsibilities as the heir to the throne, responsibilities which he 
is most definitely shirking at the moment--he's left home to go on a 
dangerous journey to find information rather than truth.



To tell you the truth, I have not read Oedipus since I was in high 
school.  I am sure the story can be interpreted in many ways.  But 
what fascinates me is, that in spite of the Greeks intellectual 
achievements, why did their gods die?

Where is Apollo and Athena now, as someone from this forum echoed a 
similar refrain?







 Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while 
back--which, by the way, she has not seen in any full sense.  Hamlet 
is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic to have 
seen that.  
 
 - Original Message 
 From: John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:58:00 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela 
Mailander 
 
 mailander111@ ... wrote:
 
 
 
  You are assuming that ancient cultures interpreted their myths 
 
 literally, as you seem to do, but this is not the case.  The play 
 
 Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles deals with this issue (among others) 
 
 Oedipus believes the myths (and the oracle), taking both literally 
as 
 
 a young man.  But when he gets older, he rejects them all because, 
 
 like any thinking adult, he figures out that they cannot be true in 
 
 any literal sense.  It does not occur to him, however, to seek 
their 
 
 truth in spiritual rather than factual terms.  That, in fact, is 
one 
 
 definition of his blindness, which becomes literal because it was a 
 
 precondition of his mind and consciousness.  So, as far back as 429 
 
 BC, ancient Greeks understood this situation.  Myth is not science 
 
 and cannot be read or understood as such.  It is always false as 
 
 such.  But that doesn't mean that it is incapable of communication 
 
 great spiritual truths and insights.  We live in a fundamentalist 
 
 age, and we could say that
 
   our culture suffers from the kind of blindness Oedipus also 
 
 suffered from.  In that sense, the play is prophesy.  It is 
 
 absolutely stunning that a Rabbi doesn't have the education to 
 
 understand his own religious tradition as myth and rejects it on 
the 
 
 grounds that it is not literal truth.  It was never meant as 
literal 
 
 truth, and the only people who interpreted it as such were

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Jason]

 
   
Krishna and Balrama did not fight.  His clan became drunk and started 
fighting and killing each other.
   
Balrama went into the state of yogam and vanished instantly.
   
Krishna went into a forest to lie down.  A hunter mistook him for a 
deer and shot him with an arrow which he found inside a fish.  Then Krishna 
also entered mahasamadhi.
   
The story is very complicated and can't be explained in a forum like 
this.

John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:56:06 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek
   
   
  From my own reading of the Shrimad Bhagavatam (SB), I am as puzzled 
as you are in interpreting the passages. There is another story in 
SB which occurred after the Battle of Kurukshetra. In the story, 
Krishna was leading his dynasty to another land in order to leave his 
kingdom at the time because he sensed bad tidings that were to come.

Along the way, one of his relatives started fighting with another 
which ended up in a all out battle among his kindred. Krishna and 
his brother participated in the battle and eventually killed all of 
their relatives in the process.

After the battle, Balarama, the brother, sat down to rest, meditated 
and went into mahasamadhi. Similarly, Krishna rested and disappeared 
from earth.

What can we say? I can only refer you to the commentary that MMY 
made regarding the battle of Kurukshetra. I believe MMY is saying 
that the story teaches us to perform actions while in samadhi. In 
other words, we can only control our action and not the fruits of it 
(stand up and fight!). And that karma is mysterious, specifically 
the events that lead one to battle.

Also, see the reply I made to feste and doreflex regarding my jyotish 
interpretation to their comments.

   
   

   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Jason]

 
   
Maharishi says with no effort is lost the yogi attains his goal.!!
   
Wealth can be created effortlessly.
   
Sure, Wealth can be ill-gotten by murdering or cheating or Genocide.!!
   
This superiority complex is the reason for the hatred for Jews all over 
the world.
   
Probably one of the causes for the Holocaust and oppression they 
faced.??

John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:17:51 -
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek
   
   
  It is likely that this story was a true account of the Hebrews' acts 
in Canaan. From our perspective, the act was barbaric. But from the 
teaching perspective, the act showed that the Hebrews fought the 
enemy and vanquished them.

We can understand the significance of this story more by using some 
principles in jyotish. Specifically, fighting with the enemy is 
signified by the 6th house, the field of battle. The 6th house is 
considered one of the artha, or wealth houses, along with the 10th 
house of career and the 2nd house of money. Thus, these are called 
the trikona (triune relationship) houses for wealth. In effect, the 
story is saying that one has to struggle in order to earn a living 
and make money.

From our perspective, we can say that the Hebrews could have suceeded 
in accomplishing the same thing without killing innocent people. But 
then again who am I to revise Hebrew history?
   
   
   

   
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 
 Judy took violent issue with my interpretation of Hamlet a while 
back--which, by the way, she has not seen in any full sense.  Hamlet 
is full of references to Oedipus, nor am I the only critic to have 
seen that.  

Yes, it was quite a faddish interpretation in
the '40s; Olivier's film version of Hamlet
was heavily influenced by Ernest Jones's Hamlet
and Oedipus. It's an approach that adds some
very interesting emotional subtext. It's somewhat
of a stretch since there are no explicit 
references to the Oedipus myth, but at least it 
doesn't do violence to the text of the play.

Quite unlike what you deigned to tell us of your
interpretation, which was based on a gross 
misreading of a couple of lines in a very long
play, as I pointed out at the time and you were
completely unable to address.

That misreading was what I took violent issue
with, as you know, along with your utterly
absurd claim that the theme of Hamlet can be
understood as an elaboration of verse II:45 of
the Gita. I explained why that interpretation
was off the wall, in terms both of Hamlet and
of Shakespeare's entire body of work, and you
had no response to that either.

You're entitled to see whatever you want to see
in any work of art. But when what you see isn't
native to the work itself, that isn't litcrit,
it's imaginative fantasy. Nothing wrong with
fantasy as long as it's not promoted as scholarly
literary criticism.

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[tertonzeno]

-
It's in the Idea Blog 2/3-rd the way down the page, an interesting 
string on the Rabbi's comments, at:
http://www.tinyurl.com/2zd2gq


-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You 
Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Would you please forward the link for this rabbi's remark?
 
 
 On 12/20/07, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  A Rabbi writes (USA Today blog section):
 
 
  Rabbi wrote:
  Actually, come to think of it, Star Trek has definitely 
contributed
  to my rejection of religious principles!!
 
  I remember the first time I saw Who Mourns for Adonais - wherein
  the erstwhile crew of the Enterprise (A, if you will…) stumble 
upon
  the lonely God Apollo, the last of the remaining figures of 
Greek
  mythology after they all retired' to a planet far away.
 
  I remember thinking, yeah, that makes as much sense as what those
  Biblical stories claim about Yaweh talking with Adam in the 
Garden of
  Eden or walking with Moses in the desert.
 
  But, as I said earlier, I grew up in Sci-Fi household – accepting 
of
  science and rejecting the myths and fairy-tales of scientifically
  illiterate cultures as just that: make believe stories!!
 
  So blame it on Star Trek!!
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?]

Thanks for the link, Tert, seems like a lively blog of insightful folks.


On 12/20/07, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 -
 It's in the Idea Blog 2/3-rd the way down the page, an interesting
 string on the Rabbi's comments, at:
 http://www.tinyurl.com/2zd2gq


 -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You
 Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Would you please forward the link for this rabbi's remark?
 
 
  On 12/20/07, tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   A Rabbi writes (USA Today blog section):
  
  
   Rabbi wrote:
   Actually, come to think of it, Star Trek has definitely
 contributed
   to my rejection of religious principles!!
  
   I remember the first time I saw Who Mourns for Adonais - wherein
   the erstwhile crew of the Enterprise (A, if you will…) stumble
 upon
   the lonely God Apollo, the last of the remaining figures of
 Greek
   mythology after they all retired' to a planet far away.
  
   I remember thinking, yeah, that makes as much sense as what those
   Biblical stories claim about Yaweh talking with Adam in the
 Garden of
   Eden or walking with Moses in the desert.
  
   But, as I said earlier, I grew up in Sci-Fi household – accepting
 of
   science and rejecting the myths and fairy-tales of scientifically
   illiterate cultures as just that: make believe stories!!
  
   So blame it on Star Trek!!

[FairfieldLife] Re: blame it on Star Trek

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You are assuming that ancient cultures interpreted their myths 
literally, as you seem to do, but this is not the case.  The play 
Oedipus Tyrannus by Sophocles deals with this issue (among others) 
Oedipus believes the myths (and the oracle), taking both literally as 
a young man.  But when he gets older, he rejects them all because, 
like any thinking adult, he figures out that they cannot be true in 
any literal sense.  It does not occur to him, however, to seek their 
truth in spiritual rather than factual terms.  That, in fact, is one 
definition of his blindness, which becomes literal because it was a 
precondition of his mind and consciousness.  So, as far back as 429 
BC, ancient Greeks understood this situation.  Myth is not science 
and cannot be read or understood as such.  It is always false as 
such.  But that doesn't mean that it is incapable of communication 
great spiritual truths and insights.  We live in a fundamentalist 
age, and we could say that
  our culture suffers from the kind of blindness Oedipus also 
suffered from.  In that sense, the play is prophesy.  It is 
absolutely stunning that a Rabbi doesn't have the education to 
understand his own religious tradition as myth and rejects it on the 
grounds that it is not literal truth.  It was never meant as literal 
truth, and the only people who interpreted it as such were the 
uneducated masses.  A play like Oedipus was intended as 
an educational play.  It was also intended as a spiritual 
experience, but if taken literally, it is a set of unbelievable 
coincidences, even if it serves as grist for the psychologist's mill.

Angela, you've made an excellent point and observation here.  The 
ancients were not as unsophisticated as some people may think.  For 
example,

Among biblical scholars, Moses is credited for writing the first five 
books of the Old Testament, which includes Genesis where the story of 
the Garden of Eden is narrated.  We can assume that many of the 
stories in this book was handed down by oral tradition among the 
Hebrews.  And, it was Moses who wrote them in text for preservation 
of the knowledge.

Christians are divided on how to interpret this story.  The Catholic 
Church regards the story to be a myth, but considers the moral and 
faith message in the story to be factual.  However, some Christian 
denominations accept the story to be literally true.  Hence, we have 
a controversy in the USA regarding the teaching Darwin's theory of 
evolution in public schools.

In the Hindu texts, stories are narrated and are embedded with 
symbols which corroborate the message inteded by the author.  
Specifically, there is a story in the Shrimad Bhagavatam of two 
guards in heaven by the name of Jaya and Vijaya.  These guards 
prevented the entry of the four Kumaras, who looked like children but 
are in reality very old and ancient seers, and who wanted to enter 
the gates of heaven.  Because of this act the two guards were cursed 
by the Kumaras to live their next three lives on earth.

Many astrologers believe that there is much more to this story than 
meets the eye.  In a deeper sense, this story actually is presenting 
a jyotish principle which states that the entry to heaven is shown in 
the jyotish chart by the lunar node, Rahu and Ketu.  And, salvation 
can be attained by the observation of the four pillars of life, i.e. 
dharma, artha, kama and moksha.

There are many stories like these in the Hindu texts which shows that 
the ancients were very meticulous in conveying their messages through 
words and symbols.  Their stories cannot be regarded as simple myths 
and fairy tales.








 - Original Message 
 From: tertonzeno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:54:11 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] blame it on Star Trek
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 A Rabbi writes (USA Today blog section):
 
 
 
 Rabbi wrote: 
 
 Actually, come to think of it, Star Trek has definitely contributed 
 
 to my rejection of religious principles!!
 
 
 
 I remember the first time I saw Who Mourns for Adonais - wherein 
 
 the erstwhile crew of the Enterprise (A, if you will…) stumble 
upon 
 
 the lonely God Apollo, the last of the remaining figures of Greek 
 
 mythology after they all retired' to a planet far away. 
 
 
 
 I remember thinking, yeah, that makes as much sense as what those 
 
 Biblical stories claim about Yaweh talking with Adam in the Garden 
of 
 
 Eden or walking with Moses in the desert.
 
 
 
 But, as I said earlier, I grew up in Sci-Fi household †accepting 
of 
 
 science and rejecting the myths and fairy-tales of scientifically 
 
 illiterate cultures as just that: make believe stories!!
 
 
 
 So blame it on Star Trek!!
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 !--
 
 
 
 #ygrp-mkp{
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px