[FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion and finally a statement from an liberated tapasin
Normal 0 Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by some former TMers 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. The claim is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. 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. 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. 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. 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. This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is an inaccurate over-simplification. 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. This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated among us. Contrary to this, the religionists claim that mantras are secret demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of true believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions Jews, Christians and Muslims. This is not a fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and was used as incinerating ideological propellant for killing polytheists after Constantines ascent to Roman power. What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged within in a Hindu cultural context. Semitic monotheists condemn this idea for the same reason. If we consider the role of yoga, it is apparent that most meditating Westerners are functionally ignorant about the nature, range, depth and complexity of yoga lineages - whether Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Most of them do not know the difference between Vedic, Puranic and Tantric lineages of practice. They also do not understand how these three streams developed and then intertwined into Hindu temple rites. They don't know vidhi from vedi.* Even more surprising, most swamis and imported yogis are not Pandits, Indologists, or Sanskritists. Very few are formally educated in the yoga traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only trained in asana, pranayam and japa. A little bhakti here, a few upanishad citations there and om tat sat - Im a guru. Faced with this, most of us Westerners who meditate are at a disadvantage when presented with claims that we are not educated to conceptualize within an
Re: [FairfieldLife] Mantras, Religion and finally a statement from an liberated tapasin
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
