[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
By 'prehistory' , historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ History Vaj wrote: Willy, you're applying a western definition-- well actually a moving western definition (certainly not the OED) from a web encyclopedia to an eastern idea... We've got to get our definition agreed on: you can't make up stuff you just heard about and call it history. That's my point. The definition of history means written history - everything before that is considered to be pre-history. In order to establish a given claim there must be evidence - you can't rely on hear-say to prove a point. You need to start thinking like a historian if you are going to cite any historical claims. All I'm saying is there are no 'historical rishis' It's just a legend - a myth, that there were any 'rishis'. There's no historical evidence that were ever 'seven primordial rishis' or the 'Big Dipper' rishis, that's just a legend, Vaj.
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
Jack Smith wrote: In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? They are not related, Jack. The notion of the 'gunas', constituents of nature, comes from the Sankhya philosophy, described by Kapila. There is no 'creation' in the Sankhya doctrine. There is Purusha, which stands alone, eternal and unchanghing, and there is prakriti, governed by three gunas and thirty-two consituents, comprising the whole in one easily comprehended matrix of change. The two are totally separate - one being an object of knowledge and the other being the witnessing Subject, the Transcendental Person. And from the contrast with that which is composed of the three constituents, there follows, for the Purusha, the character of Being, a witness; freedom from misery, neutrality, percipience, and non-agency. - Kapila Read more: Subject: Agreed! From: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.meditation Date: Wed, Mar 10 2004 http://tinyurl.com/82ogwm
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jack Smith jacksmith8...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jack Smith jacksmith8121@ wrote: What is the relationship between these two sets of qualities? RDCGunas --- rishi sattva devata rajas chhandas tamas In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? Is there some relationship such as between the tanmatras and mahabhutas? Thanks Jack *** http://snipurl.com/a9o4d [books_google_com] Thanks, but I have already read that book. I was looking for additional details, more understanding, greater insights. :) Rishi devatas and chhandas... INtellectual insight, unless you take Hagelin's word for the one-to-one correspondance between QM and the Veda, can't take you much further. You'd have to appreciate the interplay of the gunas and the samhita of rishi devatas and chhandas from a higher state of consciousness to get much more out of it, or so the TM theory goes. Now, if you want intellectual analysis, you can look at Hagelin's papers on the Unified Field and consciousness, or look at Abu-Nader's book on the Veda in human physiology, but there's no guarantee that any of this is valid save in some superficial sense related to the Law of Fives. L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
On Jan 18, 2009, at 3:44 PM, sparaig wrote: What is the relationship between these two sets of qualities? RDCGunas --- rishi sattva devata rajas chhandas tamas In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? Is there some relationship such as between the tanmatras and mahabhutas? Thanks Jack *** http://snipurl.com/a9o4d [books_google_com] Thanks, but I have already read that book. I was looking for additional details, more understanding, greater insights. :) Rishi devatas and chhandas... INtellectual insight, unless you take Hagelin's word for the one-to-one correspondance between QM and the Veda, can't take you much further. You'd have to appreciate the interplay of the gunas and the samhita of rishi devatas and chhandas from a higher state of consciousness to get much more out of it, or so the TM theory goes. Now, if you want intellectual analysis, you can look at Hagelin's papers on the Unified Field and consciousness, or look at Abu-Nader's book on the Veda in human physiology, but there's no guarantee that any of this is valid save in some superficial sense related to the Law of Fives. In tantric mantra-shastra, rishi represents both the historical person who had a particular realization and the particular state of consciousness they achieved, the subjective element, devata represents the specific quality of the deific force and chhandas is the meter it is encoded in. There are seven other dimensions in addition to these three. Later Vedic systems pick up a subset of the original tantric ones.
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
Vaj wrote: In tantric mantra-shastra, rishi represents both the historical person who had a particular realization and the particular state of consciousness they achieved... You are not making any sense, There are no 'historical' rishis; you probably meant 'legendary' rishis. History in India begins with Shakya the Muni - everything before that is considered to be pre-history.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Vaj wrote: In tantric mantra-shastra, rishi represents both the historical person who had a particular realization and the particular state of consciousness they achieved... You are not making any sense, There are no 'historical' rishis; you probably meant 'legendary' rishis. History in India begins with Shakya the Muni - everything before that is considered to be pre-history. I guess it depends what oral line you come from Willy as to what you call legendary. You just sound ill-informed. 'Never mind more recent rishis' seems to be your limited way of seeing. Not everyone relies on Kali-yuga conventions like books Willy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
There are no 'historical' rishis; you probably meant 'legendary' rishis. History in India begins with Shakya the Muni - everything before that is considered to be pre-history. Vaj wrote: You just sound ill-informed. I don't think so, Vaj. The term 'history' pertains to the written history of a culture. Writing in India was not invented until the time of the Ashoka pillars - that's my point. There are no historical rishis in India, only legends from the oral tradition. By 'prehistory', historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
On Jan 18, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Richard J. Williams wrote: There are no 'historical' rishis; you probably meant 'legendary' rishis. History in India begins with Shakya the Muni - everything before that is considered to be pre-history. Vaj wrote: You just sound ill-informed. I don't think so, Vaj. The term 'history' pertains to the written history of a culture. Writing in India was not invented until the time of the Ashoka pillars - that's my point. There are no historical rishis in India, only legends from the oral tradition. By 'prehistory', historians mean the recovery of knowledge of the past in an area where no written records exist, or where the writing of a culture is not understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History Willy, you're applying a western definition--well actually a moving western definition (certainly not the OED) from a web encyclopedia to an eastern idea. Many eastern ideas and concepts have no parallels in the west. So I'm afraid this is another of your cultural non sequiturs. You should really get out more. It's silly Willy to assume western European ideas would apply to eastern ideas, concepts and definitions. I've met modern rishis, so I don't accept your fraudulent definitions. You probably are confusing rishi (RSi) with the seven primordial rishis (saptaRSi) or the Big Dipper (saptarSi). There are many different types of rishi Willy, not just Vedic rishis. And as I said, written history, in regards to the continuum of Indian and Himalayan history, is considered an inferior artifact of the age of ignorance (kaliyuga). In original American history, many tribes had a defined historian. Often early western translators, on encountering these native historians, thought of them as dumb or stupid, because they didn't speak or interact. That's because their function was to listen and to remember--flawlessly. And that's what they did. Westerners with their loquacious ideals of what an intelligent person was seemed to miss that these were the inheritors of the tribes entire history. They didn't need to write because they had perfect recall. Your written history is a more modern product, a product of weak minds that rely on computers and books for definitions and calculators for simple math. Real history is self-referral. That's why Tibetan yogis, often tortured or barely alive after escaping their Chinese captors and making it over the Himalaya could, despite no physical texts, completely revive entire traditions. If they had relied on physical means to preserves their texts. We wouldn't have them today. True story.
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jack Smith jacksmith8...@... wrote: What is the relationship between these two sets of qualities? RDCGunas --- rishi sattva devata rajas chhandas tamas In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? Is there some relationship such as between the tanmatras and mahabhutas? Thanks Jack *** http://snipurl.com/a9o4d [books_google_com]
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jack Smith jacksmith8121@ wrote: What is the relationship between these two sets of qualities? RDCGunas --- rishi sattva devata rajas chhandas tamas In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? Is there some relationship such as between the tanmatras and mahabhutas? Thanks Jack *** http://snipurl.com/a9o4d [books_google_com] Thanks, but I have already read that book. I was looking for additional details, more understanding, greater insights. :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: rishi devata chhandas sattva rajas tamas
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , Jack Smith jacksmith8...@... wrote: What is the relationship between these two sets of qualities? RDCGunas --- Rishi = Pure self/pure conscioussness. Sattva = Pure being/uncontaminated existence Devata = Life energy/lively communicator/dynamic connection. Rajas = practical energy/fire of life/giver of existence Chhandas = The world/concrete reality/perfection. Tamas = The world/concrete reality/perfected. OffWorld In the process of creation, how do they relate to each other? Is there some relationship such as between the tanmatras and mahabhutas? Thanks Jack
