--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Barry, > > > > You fail to get the messages behind the stories of the vedic > > literature. The messages are encoded in terms of symbolisms and > > sounds. One needs to be open to these messages in order to > > understand the core of the entire literature. > > > > Even today, philosophers have difficulty in conveying the language > of > > consciousness or being since it is intellectual and spiritual by > > nature. As such, one has to accept certain terms or concrete words > > to describe a specific meaning in the nature of consciousness. > > > > For the ancient writers, they used specific terms that are readily > > understood by the people of yesterday and today. These are words > > like amrita, which on the surface means a divine elixir, which was > > produced by the demigods and asuras by churning the sea of milk. > In > > MMY's tradition, amrita is defined as the bliss that is created > while > > reaching the fourth state of consciousness, or samadhi. > > > > As the Rig Veda sings, if one is not open to the sounds of the > > absolute what good can the book do for you? > > The "buddhists" on this list do not want to hear that the Vedas are > the eternal song of nature. > They want books to cling on to, keeping them occupied with > hairsplitting analysis. > Buddha would possibly call that paper-thin spirituality.:)
are you sure, nablusoss1008, that Mr. B is a Buddhist? he appears quite young spiritually, and from what I have seen so far, appears quite antagonistic towards any form of development towards unity.
