Hey, what's the difference between Ishvara and Yaweh?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:29 PM, enlightened_dawn11 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
bravo, billy jim! very enjoyable to read true scholarship vs. monkey
chatter. i think vaj -definitely- deserves a banana after the solid
thumping you have given his specious arguments. sounds like you have
lived quite a life.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim <emptyb...@...>
wrote:
Normal 0 Re: [FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion, etc
Hi Billy Jim:
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:05 PM, billy jim wrote:
Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu
god.
Vaj wrote:
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.
Hi Vaj.
Why gee, Vaj, you must have thought my post was talking about
you. However, I have not reviewed your vast variety of claims here
on FFL. Some of the people making these more basic claim about
mantras write here, while others make their claims on different
forums.
Sorry to say, but whether you might agree or disagree with those
people's claims was not really significant to me when I composed my
original post. I was addressing a set of common claims we all have
heard over the years, many of them sounded out here on FFL.
Vaj:
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.
Gosh gee, Vaj. You have become so creative that you are now
making your own definitions. I don't have your flair for it so I
just stick with scholars of Indian yoga, religion and mythology.
According to them, Shri and Lakshmi were separate values that did
not become properly defined as goddesses until the period of the
Brahmanas. The famous Shri Suktam is actually a khila, or appendage
hymn, added to the Rig Veda but is not placed with any of the
original riks. Shri and Lakshmi appear in the Yajur Veda and later
they coalesce into a single deity. As epitaphs, the words "shri"
and "lakshmi" do appear in the Rig Veda but not as goddesses. These
terms were used as adjectives of splendor and opulence, along with
the word "shiva", meaning auspicious, which also appears in Yajur
Veda as the now famous "namah shivaya".
So in comment upon your claim, the only distinction that is
crucial is that these terms were originally used to describe various
forms of glory. They were later mythologized into goddesses, where
they received these attributions as proper names, which then were
descriptively united as a single goddess. And yes Vaj, I realize
that you know there never were gods or goddesses in India, only
devas. This is a well known journey from Vedic Brahmism to Purana-
Agama Hindu temple worship.
BillyJim:
The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method
for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from
practitioners.
Vaj:
No! It does not withhold any sort of method at all. It only
withholds a meaning.
Sorry again Vaj, but I really must confess that I did not have
you in mind. Christians and Post-Christians, who consider method and
meaning to be the same for their argument, constructed this
particular claim. Since mantras are considered god-names for them,
worship of a false god is ingredient in using mantras, whether a
meaning is imparted or not, whether a mantra is understood or not.
This was why I used the word "encapsulate".
So sorry again, Vaj. Perhaps I should consult you first before
posting here. That way you could better guarantee my posts would
strictly follow your own prescient ideas about correct
interpretation. Even better, maybe you can construct for me an
outline I can follow to get it just right. What a relief you could
give to me Vaj. I would no longer need to think for myself nor would
I need to contemplate anything. I could then call myself "Nirvikalpa
Bill" instead of just plain old "Empty Bill".
BillyJim:
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.
Vaj:
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.
Gee gosh, Vaj. When a poster puts up quotes from a Tantra and
then makes claims about the mantras in TM having the same meaning, I
guess I need to send them to you on FFL. You could then say
something like:
Vaj:
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.
Gosh again, Vaj. What if these people need to see some history
of the Veda literature and then compare it to Tantra, Shaiva Agama
and Pancharatra Samhita before believing you? Which historians of
Vedic and Agamic mantra practice would you tell them to read? Indian
works like Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric
Religion or western works like Andre Padoux's VAC, the History of
the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras? Surely not Arthur Avalon or
Swami Rama.
Yep, probably consideration of the claim that TM mantras have
the same "meaning" as Tantric mantras would be lost in such an study
based inquiry. They ought to just consult with you – shouldn't they?
BillyJim:
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.
Vaj:
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.
Well, gosh again. I don't really have your anti-commercial bias,
so I am not offended when meditation organizations need to charge
fees for their teachings. That was part of the complaint made by
some Indian immigrant with whom I talked. I believed they were
originally Indian communists, so this might explain why they
considered all Indian gurus to be gold diggers and exploiters of the
ignorance of Westerners. For my part, I am only offended when the
fees are excessive and designed to inflate a teacher's bank account.
BillyJim:
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.
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.
Vaj:
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...
Yep, I'm a fool of course, proven a number of times in daily
life. However, I never met or listened to Charlie. I did hear a
number of his comments from others who took him seriously. I already
knew enough Theosophy 101 to recognize that he was making it up out
of the framework of Blavatsky and Bailey. However, he illustrated
some of the loss incurred in shifting from the Yogananda-like
Spiritual Regeneration Movement to SCI.
BillyJim:
This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by
MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification.
Vaj:
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.
Gosh, O Gee, Vaj. I feel embarrassed that you so easily
recognize how confused and inept I am. And you even said it in front
of everyone here on the forum.
Actually I was quite disappointed over time that, as TM'ers, we
were cut out of both the Bhakti and Jnana paths. I ended up joining
a Russian Orthodox monastery as a postulant monk but should have
gone to India instead. Later I practiced Chogye Zen for a while. A
few years later I obtained a traditionally carved Shiva Lingam from
India and had the installation done with a Maha-rudra-abhisheka
using the Vaishnava Panchratra vidhi. That form of abhisheka formed
my daily morning practice until my practice was superceded by manasa
puja due to my wife's leukemia.
In realit I always considered that the Hindu basis of TM was
something I wanted to practice. Yet I also appreciated the fact that
I need not embrace a belief system to do the practice. Discussing
the knowledge via SCI was a non-theological way of presenting the
practice and understanding. Both were fine with me.
BillyJim:
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.
Vaj:
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";
"Materialist" refers to anyone claiming that religion is merely
cultural superstition and that only the material world exists as a
final reality. Most of these people profess a type of scientism.
Unfortunately quite a few Indian medical professionals here in the
US inhabit this mind-set. I work with some of them every day. For
them, enslaving the masses refers in particular to the pressures on
Indian cultural identities of caste and belief.
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...
From my side, I enjoy "making fun" of opposing views, since this
can be an art form. I expect others to do this same when
disagreeing. However, your need to attribute negative intent is a
development I had not seen before in your replies. It does not
become you and from my side it seems so incidental to our lives-at-
large that I find it boring as hell.
------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links
