--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "matrixmonitor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---true, very perceptive - I love your alternative story. It's > so "Philip - Dickian" (he wrote "The Man in the High Castle" and > other short books expressing such themes as time travel, alternative > possible histories (e.g. Hitler takes over Europe and the U.S., then > what happens").
PKD was always one of my favorites, and you're probably right that his ability to have a new and twisted view of pretty much *anything* has influenced me. :-) In this case it really was more of a revelation for me than anything else. I'd never been inter- ested enough in Shankara to find out much about his life. I'd read The Crest Jewel of Discrim- ination, of course, and appreciated his intellect, but I wasn't aware of his propensity to argue "best-ness." IMO *of course* that 'tude "filters down" to the disciples, and to the tradition itself, and *of course* we're going to see ele- ments of that same tendency in monks who come out of one of the traditions he created to establish and preserve that "best-ness." Me, I'm not convinced that *any* spiritual tech- nique or tradition is "the best," and it often surprises me when folks read that into what I say here. I'm by predilection pretty much a loner; while I may admire a certain path, and feel a resonance with it (such as Buddhism), at the same time I feel free to reject the parts of it I *don't* feel a resonance with and "take what you need and leave the rest." I even do this with Buddha's first Noble Truth -- I'm not too keen on the notion that "Life is suffering." I see far too many Buddhists getting hung up on that one and getting more than a little bent behind trying to get liberated from something -- life -- which isn't really "imprisoning" them in the first place. > Of course, Vaj is the incarnation of the Buddhist Tantrik > Abhinava Gupta, who was so jealous of Shankara (MMY and TM). > Vaj, you should have regular exams to look for fistulas. I can't disagree with you here. :-) As I've said many times ( and as Judy and others claim I'm "lying" about and that they "see" the situation "better" than I do :-), I really don't believe much of *any- thing* is "true" or "Truth." To me it's always a matter of POV, and I don't have one that allows me to perceive "Truth." So I'm always a bit surprised by those who seem to believe that either they or their teachers/traditions *do* have such a cosmic point of view. Fortunately so far, this laissez-faire 'tude has kept me free of anal fistulas. But given the vehemence with which at least one person (who seems to feel that she does have such a POV), and given the story of Shankara you posted, I'm kinda hopin' that her TMO-indoctrinated fear of trying anything from other traditions keeps her from learning any gory Tantrik rituals. :-) :-) :-) > In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > As you can probably tell, I'm really taken with the > > biography of Shankara that matrixmonitor posted an > > excerpt from, and with the larger website that it's > > a part of: > > > > http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm > > > > http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/index.htm > > > > It's a fascinating resource, one that would certainly be > > of value to those interested in this tradition and its > > philosophy. If you visit, please read the whole bio and > > glance at the links in the "Critics" section at the > > bottom of the page. > > > > Vaj and some others here have suggested at various times > > that Maharishi and his teachings might *not* be a legitimate > > example of the Shankaracharya tradition, and have expressed > > their reasons for believing this. In this post I'm suggest- > > ing that in at least one respect I can't imagine anything > > *more* representative of Shankara and his approach to > > spiritual teaching than Maharishi and the TMO. > > > > Reading first the excerpt from the bio, and then the full > > bio, and then some of the other things posted on the > > Advaita Vendanta Library site, one thing just *leaped* off > > the screen at me. It was me saying to myself, "Wow...this > > all sounds so *familiar*." > > > > So *what* sounded familiar? > > > > The near-compulsive attempt to establish "best-ness," > > that's what. > > > > Think about it. Whoever wrote the bio of Shankara on this > > site, what did he choose to *focus* on? > > > > His many debates with other spiritual teachers, Shankara > > *himself* trying to establish "best-ness," that's what. > > The bio is almost a litany of such encounters, a listing > > of debate after debate in which Shankara "proved" that his > > teachings were superior to the teachings of others. And > > there is also in the writing (IMO, of course) a simultan- > > eous gloating about all of these "lesser" teachings and > > teachers who *had* been "proven" to be lesser. The rest > > of the site echoes this theme, especially in my opinion > > the naming of the links in the "Critics" section. Most of > > them are called attempted "refutations" of Shankara's ideas, > > *continuing* the tradition of claiming "best-ness," and > > perpetuating the debate. The guy who wrote the bio (it > > just really *had* to be a guy) seems to really *enjoy* > > the idea that Shankara put Buddhist groups and other com- > > peting Indian spiritual groups out of business and/or > > "humiliated" them. > > > > Now flash forward to Maharishi, TM, the TMO, and FFL. > > > > Are all of these traits part of *that* tradition? Well, duh! > > > > The claim of "best-ness." The near-compulsive desire to > > engage anyone who says that it might *not* be "best" in > > debate and "prove" the claim of "best-ness." The gloating > > over fantasies of "refuting" these heretics' claims and > > "winning" the debate, much less the fantasies about > > "humiliating" those who believe something else. > > > > It just explains so *much* about TM and the TM experience > > and Fairfield Life and a few of the folks who hang out here > > to me. Those of us who don't necessarily believe that TM is > > "the best" say so, and the shit hits the fan. A few folks > > just *have* to try to turn it into a debate, and "win." > > And even if the person who says that they don't believe > > that TM is "the best" DOESN'T make any claim saying that > > *their* trip or philosophy is "best," that's what these > > compulsive debators HEAR. > > > > They claim that people who merely suggest that TM might > > *not* be "the best" -- or who suggest that there might not > > be such a *thing* as "the best" -- are "really" saying > > that *they* are the best. They accuse these other people > > of "exalting themselves," when from my point of view often > > the only thing the person did is say, "Uh, isn't your > > position that you're 'the best' and your defensiveness at > > any suggestion to the contrary a lot like exalting *yourself* > > a bit?" They try to turn even the most civil conversation > > and exchange of ideas into a debate, and then try to "win" > > that debate. And when they do -- at least in their minds -- > > they then move on to Phase II of the "Shankara tradition," > > which judging from this website seems to be *gloating* > > about having "won." > > > > Is the TMO part of the Shankara tradition? > > > > Well, duh. > > >
