Me:But taking them literally or attempting to > portray them as descriptive of higher states denies the obvious.
Me correcting me: I should have said "portraying scriptures as unerring descriptions of life from the perspective of higher states". I understand that in TM they are used as being descriptive of higher states. I hope that saves someone from having to make a correction post on an obvious point! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq: > > I suspect that your last sentence is what we in > > > the writing business call "stating the obvious." > > > You *don't* know how to make that distinction. > > > Neither does Jim. > > > Judy: > Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As > > he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, > > and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction > > he had been aiming for. > > > Me: I did appreciate Judy's point about how to keep the discussion on > track and not personal. I think she raised a legitimate point. I have > to accept that for some here there is a close identification of > themselves with certain ideas if I want the discussion to stay civil. > I don't know if I crossed that line with Jim because he has not > really weighed in. Although attacking an idea seems fair game, if I > denigrate a person for holding it I am inviting trouble and certainly > can't claim any higher ground. > > But to be fair to Turq concerning Jim, my comment was about a belief > in a scripture and Jim's response was to equate my opinion with that > of a dog's vocalizations. I guess Bob could have taken it personally > since he had expressed the belief as being true for him. But Bob has > strong enough intellectual boundaries it seems to not give a shit (now > that was a clever tie in) about what I believe or disbelieve. Since > he obviously equates noticing the effect of such things with refined > consciousness and my lack of it as indicative of my lack of > development, me speaking against the belief only strengthens his own I > suspect. > > But more to the point, Jim's misapplying MMY's perspective to the > wrong scriptures is what interests me. There are clear contradictions > in his position and I have attempted to get him to respond to them. I > don't really care if he considers my expressions dog like, I am > interested to see if he is capable of amending his position given > counter evidence. Summing up all the Vedic scriptures as descriptive > rather then prescriptive is a radical departure from MMY's teaching. I > am curious to see if Jim just used a movement cliche in the wrong > context, or if he has thought this through in an interesting way that > I can learn from. For anyone who has actually read the Laws of Manu > which is what MMY was referring to, his claim is preposterous as Rick > and other have pointed out. They are detailed caste level punishments > with some of the worst ones being meted out to people banging the > Guru's wife. (what a surprise!) > > Why does this matter? I believe that viewing the Vedic literature as > gospel truth is a huge mistake because it reduces a fascinating body > of human thought into a thought stopper. Appreciating the many > insights into human life that scriptures contain transcends culture > and religious beliefs. Pretending that they are all infallible in the > right state of consciousness reduces them to the level of the Bible > for Christian fundamentalists. Even atheists can find value in all > the world's scriptures. But taking them literally or attempting to > portray them as descriptive of higher states denies the obvious. That > contained in all the world's scriptures are parts that IMO are best > labeled as nonsense and others with great value. There is no > redeeming quality of promoting racism or misogyny, but these values > are found in most world scriptures and in spades in the Vedic > literature. I think it is important to point out where we in the > modern world have advanced out thinking. > > Now about Jim personally...I have given him a partial pass on his > claims of internal experiences. By that I mean I think it is possible > that he is experiencing an internal state very different from the one > he had before. But it means nothing to me since I never relate to > people according to their internal states, I couldn't care less. What > interest me is how does this state express itself in communication. I > am really curious to see if Jim can either admit to being wrong on > this point or if he can proffer an insight that will make me think > beyond my current boundaries. > > I am waiting... > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > Me: This is a difference we have had in the past. You seen > > > > > unable to distinguish a person's attack on an idea with a > > > > > personal attack. I have not made any statement about what I > > > > > think of you as a person if you decide you want to embrace the > > > > > idea that looking at your turds is harmful. I am saying that > > > > > this belief is misguided, wrong, nonsense,like much information > > > > > from pre-scientific societies. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Your characterization of my belief > > > > > as howling and barking, the vocalizations of dogs, is personally > > > > > insulting in every culture I know. > > > > > > > > So your characterization of Jim's belief as "misguided, > > > > wrong, and nonsense" isn't an attack on Jim; but Jim's > > > > characterization of your belief as "howling and barking" > > > > *is* an attack on you. > > > > > > > > How does that work, exactly? I sure don't know > > > > how I would make that distinction. > > > > > > I suspect that your last sentence is what we in > > > the writing business call "stating the obvious." > > > You *don't* know how to make that distinction. > > > Neither does Jim. > > > > Oops, you should have read Curtis's response. As > > he recognized, I was commenting on his phrasing, > > and he agreed that it didn't make the distinction > > he had been aiming for. > > > > > *Both* of you reacted to my silly Aphorisms as if > > > I had attacked the *belief systems*, when what they > > > were really were a set of snarks about the common > > > actions of the *believers*. Yet you claimed: > > > > > > > The more spiritual aphorisms you come up with > > > > in an attempt to discredit spiritual paths, the > > > > angrier you are about your own inability to find > > > > one of your own. > > > > A "path" is whatever one is following, of course, > > even if one has made it up oneself. Your tortured > > attempt to squeeze out a distinction is hilariously > > bogus. > > > > > And Jim claimed: > > > > > > > Those that contnuously claim there is nowhere to go, > > > > go nowhere. > > > > > > I don't think that *either* of those claims is borne > > > out by the post being replied to. > > > > > > I think that what both of your replies represent is > > > a common cult technique called "Whenever the actions > > > or beliefs of the followers of a cult are called > > > into question, try to characterize the questioner > > > as attacking the cult (or religion or belief system) > > > itself." > > > > Naah. Your claim here is *your* common technique > > when you're made fun of for trashing other people's > > beliefs: blame it on the "cult" you fantasize the > > critics belong to, as if there could be no other > > motivation for mocking your compulsive putdowns. > > > > But oddly enough, just a few posts back you were > > claiming: > > > > "In my experience, I think I learned more from and > > benefited more from those moments in which I was > > able to laugh at my own assholiness than I ever did > > from all that talk about holiness." > > > > Now, *that's* funny! > > >
