Hi Billy Jim:
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote:
Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some
former TM’ers who stopped practicing because they claimed they were
deceived about the "meaning" of mantras.
Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god.
You might want to reread those "claims". These aren't "names" per se,
but seed-forms of nicknames of Goddesses or Gods. Code-words, if you
will. To use a previous example, "Shri" is not the name of Laxmi, Shri
is a nickname or epithet of Laxmi. This is a crucial distinction.
The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for
worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from
practitioners.
No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only withholds
a meaning.
Within the domain of this argument, these claimants will often quote
some text from a Hindu Tantra. These are passages usually assigning
a particular deity to a particular mantra and sometimes even
assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit letters composing
the written forms of the mantric sound. This textual assignment is
sometimes done haphazardly and occasionally is done in the Vedic
format of rishi-deva-chhanda.
Again, wrong. They are done in the TANTRIC format. This is only
related to the Vedic sense in that the prior tantric forms, at a
certain point in history, reached a certain symbiosis with the
invading Vedic ideals. But the fact is, the tantric forms of mantra-
shastra existed BEFORE the Vedic adaptations, not vice versa as you
attempt. This would include the broader tantric interpretation of
rishi-devata-chhandas-svara-prayoga, etc. etc.
Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a statement by MMY,
declaring that a mantra is a "sound whose effect is known". This
argument quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the
beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement
of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of
shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of the "Hindu" foundation
of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not confess
itself as a form of "Hindu devotionalism". This devotionalist
criticism is further paraded by pointing to various Indian swamis
and cross-eyed yogis who make these same claims and arguments
themselves.
Not sure what to think of this. It sounds like you're upset about some
supposition you've made, in your mind. I'll leave that to your mind,
your experience and your (evolving) knowledge to work it out.
Some considerations about these claims:
SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to
the West. They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu
cultural model. Although they taught in India, where there are many
Muslims, they did not present their teaching within a Muslim
cultural model. Although Buddhism is from India and many Indian
consider Buddha one of their own, neither SBS nor MMY taught within
a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the cultural
context of their listeners.
OK....
After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within
a similar Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching
model established by Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly
religious, partly philosophical and partly yogic. However the
cultural context of this form of teachings was the 19th and 20th
century paradigm of Western Modernity.
When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and of
religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That
divergence left some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an
example.
Well I don't know if I agree with that. Charlie was a previous
follower of Theosophy (or so his comments would seen to show). Charlie
tried as best he could to incorporate his newly acquired TM beliefs
with his previously acquired Theosophical beliefs. Some things jived
and other didn't. Some people were fooled and others saw through his
admixture. It sounds like you were one of the fools...
This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY
or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification.
No it's not. See the previous example. MMY and SBS are still
ultimately responsible for their utterances, in the contexts they were
given. It's most likely true that their original utterances are true
and unadulterated opinions, unassuaged by later milieus. You're simply
confused by your own inability to reconcile the later milieus and the
original statements. This is because you lack the appropriate relative
(and likely) experiential knowledge being referred to. So you express
confusion and attempt to present it as fact.
As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that
are the most antagonist and strident are the materialists and the
religionists. Materialists claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of
hindoo gods and that the concept of gods/god is a false idea
propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses.
Well there's a clear contradiction in this claim. First of all the
originators of the mantras, they claim a connection between the bija-
aksharas and the gods/goddesses. It's known as "name and form",
namarupa. I've not heard any "Materialists" claim they were used to
"enslave the masses"; rather I've heard the claim that the mantras
were "meaningless sounds", rather than the truth: that they were the
phonic representations of devas and devatas at a mental level, meant
to plant seeds in the consciousness of the mantrin, so those seeds
could sprout and give birth to the "tree" of that cosmic personality
(in the mantrin). You're attempting to obfuscate, mislead and confuse
by claiming a superior knowledge which is in fact, false.
I'll try to answer the rest of your spurious claims and attempts at
apologism if and when I have time. Too many falsehoods for one
evening...
