On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:17 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > ME: > But we have confidence in their metaphoric reality from modern testing, not > from taking them as divine revelation, right? If they can make a prediction > that can be tested then you may have a better case for their value in > medicine or science. I believe this is misplaced value and that it is the > arts where they really shine.
Well, it depends how you define "divine revelation". If by "divine revelation" you mean" some brahmin guru said it, so it must be true, then no. If by "divine revelation" you mean someone had the unusual experience of collapsing the triad of knowing and simply and directly experienced a reality, which - WTF! - it worked...many of us replicated it and so we've followed since then, well then, yes. > > Vaj: > > > > While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a > > phony guru, > > ME: I am not skeptical about the claims made in ancient systems of medicine > because of Maharishi. As far as I am concerned I wasn't burned by anyone. I > enjoyed Maharishi's POV till the day I didn't accept it as real. I am not at > all convinced that what he was serving me wasn't exactly what any of these > guys offer. He got me as off as I needed to get to evaluate his claims. It is > the premise I reject, not his authority as the real deal holy man. I haven't > seen evidence that these "enhanced" state of consciousness are actually > better. For me, it was not. Well that's fair. I would agree that the enhanced states of consciousness he served did not (unfortunately) end up being all that helpful - to "us" as individuals and to "us" as a supposedly helpful hive-mind. > > Vaj: > it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable > wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you > realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the > stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins > of time. > > > > ME: > We may not share the same definition of what constitutes an open mind. In my > version, I read the books and see what they contain. Then I do my best to > draw whatever conclusions I can. I think a basic premise of tantric (and rarely) the Vedas is not that 'books contain wisdom'. Instead the premise is that the lineal tradition, as it was originally done, is the key. In effect, it was begging an external and an internal (or subjective) science. Those of us raised on external sciences might find this heresy. But those who took the time to follow-thru on an internal "science" might have found out different. Repeatability works…if you know how to repeat it in the first place. We were not "burned" by false promises of a slum dog rishi - and thus sent reeling in an opposing direction. It's now clear that he was not nor is not part of the "tradition" of repeatability. Sadly faux research (sadly) proves this. > I am not humbled by Vedic literature or by the viable wisdom it may contain. > It seems on a par with other ancient cultures who relied on sacrifices to > appease gods. I think you're right here. Particularly on the level of Anglish translation. The real value is at the level of the original language - and even then, it's highly speculative as to what these verses actually mean. Even after reading thru Aurobindo's pro-Hindu stuff, it's WAY speculative. The tantras I find much more realistic and practical. I find the Brahmin-based appropriation of the Vedas as largely parallel to X-tian fundie appropriation of Anglish translation of Greek translations of the Aramaic words as being apropos for 2011 AD. The only Jihad is the Jihad against stupidity. This is (and there should be) no Holy War. ;-)
