For Janet S.
Vaj.
of Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. Swami Karpatri who was affectionately
referred to as "the Shankaracharya maker". He himself refused the seat
on at least two occasions.
The Sacred Books
As we have seen, writing is an urban phenomenon, characteristic of the
Kali Yuga. *To freeze the teachings of "prophets" in books regarded as
sacred is to paralyze the spirit of research; it fixes so-called
established truths and tends to create blind faith instead of the
search for knowledge.* The nature of knowledge is to evolve. Like other
aspects of the human being, it knows periods of progress and decline.
The teaching of the Rishi(s) is a living thing that enables the species
to realize its role at various stages of its evolution. It can only be
transmitted by initiation through qualified individuals. The fixation
in Writings of the visions and perceptions of Seers, which represent
the forms of knowledge necessary at a certain moment of the evolution
of the species, whether it be a matter of cosmological, scientific,
religious, or moral ideas, presents grave risks. The sacred book valid
for all time and all people is a fiction.
The new Sâmkhya sometimes replaces the word *Agama* (tradition) by the
word *Veda* (from the root vid, knowledge) to represent permanent
information (akshara), the plan that is at the basis of all aspects of
creation, the object of all research, all science, all metaphysics, all
true knowledge. Taken in this sense, the word Vedä has nothing to do
with the religious texts known by this name. The notion of Vedä
represents the belief in a universal law, the object of knowledge. This
implies the acceptance of the idea that there exists divine order of
the world of which it is possible to have a fragmentary glimpse, an
"approach" (upanishad), even though this order remains on the whole
unknowable. No one can pretend to possess the "truth" in any domain. A
dogmatic teaching can be neither scientifically nor philosophically nor
morally justifiable.
The advent of writing has allowed for the substitution of conceptions
of religious or social reformers, in the guise of inspired prophets,
for the teachings of the Seers. This has oven birth to the religions of
the book that characterize the Kali Yuga.
The superstition of the written word is an obstacle to the development
of knowledge in the domain of scientific or religious information. The
religions of the book have been one of the most effective instruments
of man's decadence during the course of the Kali Yuga and have been
used by urban oligarchies, both religious and secular, as instruments
of domination.
To take texts, whether called Vedä, Bible, or Koran, as an expression
of reality or of divine will is puerile and dangerous. This is part of
the antireligion which lowers the concept of the divine to the human
scale."
jst...@panix.com
this newsgroup. Did you mean to post this
to some other group?
John Manning
> from Alain Danielou, western student of Sw. Karpatri, western student of
> Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. Swami Karpatri who was affectionately
> referred to as "the Shankaracharya maker". He himself refused the seat
> on at least two occasions.
>
> The Sacred Books
>
> As we have seen, writing is an urban phenomenon, characteristic of the
> Kali Yuga. *To freeze the teachings of "prophets" in books regarded as
> sacred is to paralyze the spirit of research; it fixes so-called
> established truths and tends to create blind faith instead of the search
> for knowledge.* The nature of knowledge is to evolve. Like other aspects
> of the human being, it knows periods of progress and decline. The
> teaching of the Rishi(s) is a living thing that enables the species to
> realize its role at various stages of its evolution. It can only be
> transmitted by initiation through qualified individuals.
Sounds like exactly what Maharishi and his
qualified teachers are doing.
The fixation in
> Writings of the visions and perceptions of Seers, which represent the
> forms of knowledge necessary at a certain moment of the evolution of the
> species, whether it be a matter of cosmological, scientific, religious,
> or moral ideas, presents grave risks. The sacred book valid for all time
> and all people is a fiction.
>
> The new Sâmkhya sometimes replaces the word *Agama* (tradition) by the
> word *Veda* (from the root vid, knowledge) to represent permanent
> information (akshara), the plan that is at the basis of all aspects of
> creation, the object of all research, all science, all metaphysics, all
> true knowledge. Taken in this sense, the word Vedä has nothing to do
> with the religious texts known by this name. The notion of Vedä
> represents the belief in a universal law, the object of knowledge. This
> implies the acceptance of the idea that there exists divine order of the
> world of which it is possible to have a fragmentary glimpse, an
> "approach" (upanishad), even though this order remains on the whole
> unknowable.
Shankara didn't think so. Neither did Guru Dev.
No one can pretend to possess the "truth"
in any domain. A
> dogmatic teaching can be neither scientifically nor philosophically nor
> morally justifiable.
>
> The advent of writing has allowed for the substitution of
> conceptions of religious or social reformers, in the guise of inspired
> prophets, for the teachings of the Seers. This has oven birth to the
> religions of the book that characterize the Kali Yuga.
>
> The superstition of the written word is an obstacle to the
> development of knowledge in the domain of scientific or religious
> information. The religions of the book have been one of the most
> effective instruments of man's decadence during the course of the Kali
> Yuga and have been used by urban oligarchies, both religious and
> secular, as instruments of domination.
>
> To take texts, whether called Vedä, Bible, or Koran, as an
> expression of reality or of divine will is puerile and dangerous. This
> is part of the antireligion which lowers the concept of the divine to
> the human scale."
So why are you doing exactly that, Vaj?
John Manning
> : For Janet S.
Your obvious, knowing insult further reveals
your character.
Vaj.
my apologies, I meant Judy.
You remind me of someone.
jst...@panix.com
Vaj. wrote:
> On 2005-05-12 20:10:25 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
> > There's nobody named "Janet" participating on
> > this newsgroup. Did you mean to post this
> > to some other group?
>
> my apologies, I meant Judy.
OK, apologies accepted. So you posted this
for me why?
jst...@panix.com
Sorry, got called away before I could finish this.
I'm puzzled because I expect you to be posting stuff
that represents disgreement with MMY, but this is
right in line with what he teaches.
MMY places great importance on this verse
of the Rig Veda:
Richo akshare parame vyoman yasmin deva adhi vishve nisheduh,
Yastanna veda kim richa karishyatiya it tad vidus ta ime samasate.
(Rk Veda, 1.164.39)
MMY's translation:
"The verses of Veda exist in the collapse of fullness in the
transcendental field, in which reside all the impulses of creative
intelligence, the laws of Nature, responsible for the whole manifest
universe. He whose awareness is not open to this field, what can the
verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are
established in evenness, in wholeness of life."
Vaj.
>> As we have seen, writing is an urban phenomenon, characteristic of the
>> Kali Yuga. *To freeze the teachings of "prophets" in books regarded as
>> sacred is to paralyze the spirit of research; it fixes so-called
>> established truths and tends to create blind faith instead of the
>> search for knowledge.* The nature of knowledge is to evolve. Like other
>> aspects of the human being, it knows periods of progress and decline.
>> The teaching of the Rishi(s) is a living thing that enables the species
>> to realize its role at various stages of its evolution. It can only be
>> transmitted by initiation through qualified individuals.
>
>
> Sounds like exactly what Maharishi and his qualified teachers are doing.
Yes, John I agree that Mahesh creates blind faith in his followers.
That's one of the reasons he keeps such a great distance from his
students.
Vaj.
>
> jst...@panix.com wrote:
>> Vaj. wrote:
>>> On 2005-05-12 20:10:25 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>>>
>>>> There's nobody named "Janet" participating on
>>>> this newsgroup. Did you mean to post this
>>>> to some other group?
>>>
>>> my apologies, I meant Judy.
>>
>> OK, apologies accepted. So you posted this
>> for me why?
>
> Sorry, got called away before I could finish this.
>
> I'm puzzled because I expect you to be posting stuff
> that represents disgreement with MMY, but this is
> right in line with what he teaches.
Quite the opposite....esp. considering how Danielou despised
aberrations and TM in particular.
jst...@panix.com
> > I'm puzzled because I expect you to be posting stuff
> > that represents disgreement with MMY, but this is
> > right in line with what he teaches.
>
> Quite the opposite....esp. considering how Danielou despised
> aberrations and TM in particular.
A flat contradiction with no attempt to address
my point, plus yet another non sequitur.
Exactly how is what I noted about MMY's
emphasis on this verse from the Rig Veda--
"The verses of Veda exist in the collapse of fullness in the
transcendental field, in which reside all the impulses of creative
intelligence, the laws of Nature, responsible for the whole manifest
universe. He whose awareness is not open to this field, what can the
verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are
established in evenness, in wholeness of life."
--not in line with the Danielou quote?
The only difference I can see is that Danielou
is ranting about *written* texts, whereas
obviously the verse from the Rig Veda takes
into account only the oral Sanskrit. And MMY
has never promoted study of the semantic meaning
of the written-down texts, let alone proclaiming
it as dogma.
So, Vaj, what's the difference?
Steve Ralph
"Vaj." <no-r...@shunyata.net> wrote in message
news:2005051307283216807%noreply@shunyatanet...
This comment is completely fallacious, given the content of the above
paragraph. Good try though.
SR
Vaj.
On 2005-05-13 09:21:32 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
>
> Vaj. wrote:
>> On 2005-05-12 23:44:28 -0400, jst...@panix.com said:
> <snip>
>>> I'm puzzled because I expect you to be posting stuff
>>> that represents disgreement with MMY, but this is
>>> right in line with what he teaches.
>>
>> Quite the opposite....esp. considering how Danielou despised
>> aberrations and TM in particular.
>
> A flat contradiction with no attempt to address
> my point, plus yet another non sequitur.
>
> Exactly how is what I noted about MMY's
> emphasis on this verse from the Rig Veda--
>
> "The verses of Veda exist in the collapse of fullness in the
> transcendental field, in which reside all the impulses of creative
> intelligence, the laws of Nature, responsible for the whole manifest
> universe. He whose awareness is not open to this field, what can the
> verses accomplish for him? Those who know this level of reality are
> established in evenness, in wholeness of life."
>
> --not in line with the Danielou quote?
Danielou points out the Veda has nothing to do with the texts of the
same name--yet Mahesh's obsession is just that--how the brain is the
veda, the tantric scriptures are the veda, etc. Furthermore he points
out that the real teaching was from the Agamas, not the Vedas...Vedic
in this sense is a word used in pre-vedic Samkhya and actually may
represent the slow co-opting of older traditions by the Vedic Aryans.
Indeed, this is talked of quite a lot by Karpatri and Danielou.
What I found interesting was that the true tradition stemming from Guru
Dev is very much in conflict to what Mahesh (literally) sells.
jst...@panix.com
But in all cases the Veda is to be known
experientially, not via conceptual learning
of dogma from written-down texts. The latter
is what Danielou seems to be railing against,
and MMY is equally opposed to it.
> Furthermore he points
> out that the real teaching was from the Agamas, not the Vedas...Vedic
> in this sense is a word used in pre-vedic Samkhya and actually may
> represent the slow co-opting of older traditions by the Vedic Aryans.
> Indeed, this is talked of quite a lot by Karpatri and Danielou.
>
> What I found interesting was that the true tradition stemming from
Guru
> Dev is very much in conflict to what Mahesh (literally) sells.
In what respects?
> "To take texts, whether called Vedä, Bible, or Koran, as an
expression
> of reality or of divine will is puerile and dangerous. This is part
of
> the antireligion which lowers the concept of the divine to the human
> scale."
The Veda, in MMY's view, is not an *expression*
of reality; it *is* reality--again, to be known
experientially, not via the study of texts.
eki
FWIW, the 3rd person singular present tense indicative form
of the verb 'to know' (vid) seems to be somewhat exceptional:
'veda' , like in "yas tan na veda" (yaH; tat; na; veda -- he, who
that not knows). Well, the nominative singular of the *noun*
'veda-' , is , of course, 'vedaH' , like in 'vedo `ham' (vedaH; aham
-- I am veda ; Or is there such a mahaavaakya, or something?)
John Manning
You didn't address any of my responses, Vaj.
Is there something wrong with you?
Bhairitu
of a right hand path with its austerities, renunciation, etc. when the
left hand tantric path is more fitting for householders. With the left
hand path you get your cake and can eat it too. But so many *new agers*
are enthralled with *holy men* and want to be one themselves even those
the notion is foolish in the west.
- Bhairitu
Vaj.
No, I'm fine, thanks for asking.