--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > There's nothing in the Gita text as translated that > > > > > suggests Krishna "wants" devotion (let alone that he's > > > > > "jealous"). It simply says, This is the way it works. > > > > > > > > He may not want it, or need it, but, it's required!! :-) > > > > > > Yup, according to the Bhakti interpretation of the > > > text, at least. > > > > > > > Although, I think he wants it, as he is constantly seeking > > > > us through the still small voice of conscience, guiding us, > > > > back to him: > > > > > > It's a glorious poem, > > Yikes. I just went and reread the whole thing. I'd > forgotten how purple it was! I can't really stomach > much of it other than that first stanza. > > but I can't get into anthropomorphizing > > > deity. I think Thompson was projecting his own fear of > > > surrender onto a manufactured image of a Divine Pursuer. > > > Or he may have been very well aware of what he was afraid > > > of and created a metaphor to describe the self fleeing > > > from the Self. > > > > Yeah that's it! (the later) It is the 'ego' fleeing the > > higher Self or the Soul. Conscience is the voice of that > > soul, hence MMY proclaims "Natural Law" by which life is > > ordered according to law, natural law, or, Raj-Ram if you > > wish. > > That's most likely what Thompson thought it was; he led > a pretty dissolute life, and he was a Catholic, so he > must have been carrying a lot of guilty baggage. > > > If you go further on in the poem it gives the reason the > > ego flees the admonitions of the soul or conscience: > > > > *For, though I knew His love Who followèd, > > Yet was I sore adread > > Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.* > > > > By naught beside would mean the pleasures of the ego, > > (i.e. all of the senses). He would have to give up all > > the pleasures of the senses, (a lame argument of the > > ego however)................... > > What resonates for me is more abstract, the fear of > giving up your individuality. It is a lame argument, > because you don't lose your individuality, it just > feels as though you're going to. All you're really > losing is your attachment to it.
Bingo!
