[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
The NYTimes had a very favorable review of Crumb's Genesis book today. I thought the reviewer made some interesting comments in light of what some here have claimed about it, i.e., that Crumb has read nothing into the text, that it's all just absolutely straight depiction of what the words say: "Doing a comic book, rather than a book of text with spot illustrations, Crumb had to provide a drawing for every short passage often six or more pieces of art per page frequently with little indication in the language of what, exactly, to show. "Many of the illustrations, then, constitute revisions of the text to some degree, and not mere amplifications. When Abram decides to offer Sarai to the king of Egypt, Crumb shows us Sarai at first baffled in the grammar of comics, a question mark appears in a thought balloon beside her and, in the next panel, distraught, a tear trickling down her cheek. The Scripture gives no hint of her feelings. "Here and throughout the book, Crumb seems to be making a point to flesh out the female characters in an apparent effort to offset the relentless male orientation of the text. In the introduction, he explains that he treated the work as 'a straight illustration job.' Yet his task was hardly straightforward." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/books/review/Hajdu-t.html?hpw http://tinyurl.com/ygwt244 So even Crumb has done a bit of spinning, it would seem. It's to his credit, by me, if he has tried to bring out the feelings of the female characters-- but they are very often left out of the text, so he's had to make his own guesses. The L.A. Times also has a review, also very favorable, also with some comments of interest in light of what has been said on FFL: "If you remove divinity from the equation, 'Genesis' becomes a human creation -- 'a powerful text,' in Crumb's words, 'with layers of meaning that reach deep into our collective consciousness, our historical consciousness, if you will.'" Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like what Shemp wrote about Scripture that someone here derided. The reviewer continues: "These stories are sacred, then, not because they were handed own by any deity but because they speak to the elemental conflicts that drive us as women and men "God is here, but he is mercurial, pitiless, willing to wipe out creation with a flood to purge the world of wickedness, yet somehow powerless to stop wickedness from reemerging once the Earth repopulates. Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's near- sacrifice of Isaac, even Jacob wrestling with the angel: The point of these episodes is awe, in the most terrifying sense of the word -- awe at a universe that defies our reason and in which we must continually make adjustments to survive. "Nowhere is this more true than in the story of Tamar, who tricks her father-in-law into sleeping with her after the death of her husband and bears twins out of the deception, one of whom, Perez, becomes the ancestor of 'the later kings of Judea.' On the one hand, this is as transgressive a sequence as the Bible offers -- Onan figures into it also -- but in Crumb's interpretation, it is the story of a 'fiercely determined woman, [who] takes it upon herself to ensure the survival of her lineage.'" http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-r-crumb11-2009oct11,0,6955001.story http://tinyurl.com/yjfyuwe That last is particularly fascinating given the comments made here about the story of Lot's daughters getting him drunk in order to have sex with him. Yes, it's about incest, but it's also about, to paraphrase Crumb, two fiercely determined women who take it upon themselves to ensure the survival of their lineage--because everyone else in it has just been destroyed when God blasted the city of Sodom. If Lot's daughters don't conceive by their father, they will never have any children, and that will be the end of their family line.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > Look, I *understand* that anyone can "paint a > pretty picture" over ancient scriptures, and > by considering them mere metaphor, ignore the > literal level of what the stories are about. > > I'm trying to make the point that I think it's > a good idea *TO* look at the literal level from > time to time, to see what is subconsciously > being taught as "proper" or "dharmic" behavior. Barry. We all see the "literal level." We're not blind. But we choose to put our attention on the more uplifting level. Why do you choose to put yours on violence and cruelty and authoritarianism? How's that workin' for ya? Because it seems to be making you very angry and unhappy. Sort of like fundamentalist Christians, who also put their attention on the literal level and don't seem to be able to see past it to anything more elevating.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
There are two types of God. One is the personal God of Abraham, Issac
and Jacob. The other is the God of the Spinoza, totaly impersonal and
non-interfering absolute.
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, yifuxero wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 8:53 PM
Your'e missing something in this New-Age interpretation of GOD. The
Tetragrammaton is used in the Hebrew Scriptures for "God" (as a symbol, not an
exact Name). Hevertheless the Tetragrammaton represents a PERSONALITY, not an
"IT". The Deity of the Hebrews was a Personality, not the Impersonal Absolute.
The Tetragrammaton is written down over 8,000 in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The question, "What is the Truth" differs from:
b. What we want to be the truth (truthiness) . and
c. (related): what did people (in particular ancient cultures continuing to
this day) believe was the Truth.
While those exposed to New Age ideas, Buddhism, Saivite Hinduism along with
Gnostics, may believe that "the Truth" is the Gnostic interpretation, it would
be incorrect to say:
"most of the Jews prior to 500 BC were Gnostics".
A few of them may have been, obviously.
In all probability, a correct statement would be:
"Jews prior to 500 BC were for the most part, believers in some type of
dualistic Personality as a Deity: namely, ("Yahweh"; i.e. some actual "real"
(though not physically embodied) Entity worshiped as a Personal Deity by the
superstitious tribal people of that period."
...
As stated before, since the name "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" may or may not be the
actual Name of the Entity in question, the Hebrew writers have used the 4
Hebrew characters as consonants to represent Him, and it's a HIM, not a HER or
IT.
...
So, although one might WANT to believe the ancient Near-Eastern peoples were
all Advaitins, such was not the case. There may have been a few.
Just my opinion...; theres a lot more "Wisdom" in Judaism than in Evangelical
Christianity by far; but on the whole, the religion of the ancient Hebrews was
dualistic, not monistic in the Advaitic sense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > > > (snip) > > > > So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go > > > > with your gut and your intuition and your natural > > > > love for your own son, or do you go with the > > > > belief that you are, in fact, talking to such > > > > a being as "God," and that being is telling you > > > > to do something unimaginable and horrific? > > > > (snip) > > > > > > You go with your 'Gut' because you gut has been around for > > > millions of years, programmed in your stranded DNA... > > > Your 'Intuition is Connected to your Heart'..so that would also, > > > be a 'Good Clue'... > > > > > > So, faith, comes from trusting your instincts... > > > Faith doesn't come, from following leaders, but rather thinking > > > and feeling, for: 'What's Right for You!'... > > > > Naturally, I agree with you. However, might I > > point out that the TM TB whom I mentioned in > > the previous post who said often that he would > > willingly kill anyone that Maharishi told him to > > kill used as his justification for this the Bhagavad- > > Gita? > > > > One way of viewing the essential message of the > > Bhagavad-Gita is, "Do what you're told to do." > > (snip) > > This is where, translations, can be tricky... > I think the appropriate translation, would be: > 'Do Your Duty'..Do your Dharma... > > My father, joined the Army, when he was 17.. If he had been German, he might have joined *that* Army, and "Done his Duty" / "Done his Dharma" there. Those duties might have included rounding up Jews and send them to the ovens. > He didn't know, what he was in store for, at the time, I'm sure... > But, once he was on the battlefield, he had to fight, or die... And he was fighting other people who were just doing what they were told to do. Look, I *understand* that anyone can "paint a pretty picture" over ancient scriptures, and by considering them mere metaphor, ignore the literal level of what the stories are about. I'm trying to make the point that I think it's a good idea *TO* look at the literal level from time to time, to see what is subconsciously being taught as "proper" or "dharmic" behavior. In the Gita, that literal level is that it is not only OK to kill your fellow human beings, it's "dharma" or "duty." In the Biblical story of Abraham and Issac, it's that it's OK to kill your own son, roast him on an altar, and offer him up as a sacrifice to God if your inner visions of God tell you to. Project all the pretty metaphors onto scriptures that you want to. But don't get all in a huff when someone points out the literal level of the stories you are pretending are *only* spiritual metaphors. The literal level of the story of Rama and Sita and Hanuman is that the scripture is justifying genocide (killing all of the people of Sri Lanka) in retaliation for one person kidnapping Rama's sweetie. The literal story of the Bhagavad Gita is that it's not only OK for Arjuna to kill his relatives, it's his duty or "dharma" to do so. Get real, people...this is barbarism. TMers have the chutzpah to cite the "Vedic liter- ature" and the "glorious past" of an imaginary Sat Yuga as a justification for believing that the ME will usher in a period of world peace. Well...I challenge you to *produce* this past era of world peace that you're trying to "re-achieve." Show me one historical record that shows that the Vedic period *WAS* a period of peace. Its stories are largely about fighting wars and fighting bad guys and fighting demons. WHERE did these bad guys and demons COME FROM if their spiritual prac- tices made them "invincible," eh? If it was such a glorious period, why did they need laws and armies? Are the repressive statutes of the Laws Of Manu just "metaphor" or did they really exist and were they used to persecute anyone who didn't Do What They Were Told To Do? Glorify and "metaphorize" your "scriptures" all you want. But get real about it. If the "scrip- ture" is talking about wiping out an entire tribe of humans for one person's infraction, you're still talking about a story of genocide. If the story involves God flooding the earth because people haven't been paying enough attention to him, you are still talking about a "God" who is prone to JEALOUSY and EGO. Projecting pretty metaphors onto ugly stories is as old as history, and will continue long past the "end times" of 2012. But hopefully a few people will point out from time to time that many of the stories themselves are butt-ugly and represent only the lowest qualities of human beings, not the highest qualities of "gods."
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Your'e missing something in this New-Age interpretation of GOD. The
Tetragrammaton is used in the Hebrew Scriptures for "God" (as a symbol, not an
exact Name). Hevertheless the Tetragrammaton represents a PERSONALITY, not an
"IT". The Deity of the Hebrews was a Personality, not the Impersonal Absolute.
The Tetragrammaton is written down over 8,000 in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The question, "What is the Truth" differs from:
b. What we want to be the truth (truthiness). and
c. (related): what did people (in particular ancient cultures continuing to
this day) believe was the Truth.
While those exposed to New Age ideas, Buddhism, Saivite Hinduism along with
Gnostics, may believe that "the Truth" is the Gnostic interpretation, it would
be incorrect to say:
"most of the Jews prior to 500 BC were Gnostics".
A few of them may have been, obviously.
In all probability, a correct statement would be:
"Jews prior to 500 BC were for the most part, believers in some type of
dualistic Personality as a Deity: namely, ("Yahweh"; i.e. some actual "real"
(though not physically embodied) Entity worshiped as a Personal Deity by the
superstitious tribal people of that period."
...
As stated before, since the name "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" may or may not be the
actual Name of the Entity in question, the Hebrew writers have used the 4
Hebrew characters as consonants to represent Him, and it's a HIM, not a HER or
IT.
...
So, although one might WANT to believe the ancient Near-Eastern peoples were
all Advaitins, such was not the case. There may have been a few.
Just my opinion...; theres a lot more "Wisdom" in Judaism than in Evangelical
Christianity by far; but on the whole, the religion of the ancient Hebrews was
dualistic, not monistic in the Advaitic sense.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is that why He is a ' Jealous God '.?? He says "I am a Jealous
> > God." How can a God be Jealous.??
> (snip)
> God never promised 'Eternal Damnation in Hell'...
> Hell is created by humans on earth...
> God as nothing to do with it...
> It is do to the human ego...which is the enemy of all life on earth...
>
> God is Jealous?
> Don't know if that's an exact translation...
> But, the interpretation is that it is 'God's Creation'...
> Not your's, and not mind, not Donald Trump, not Mick Jagger, not George W.
> Bush, not the money, not the government, not the 'Catholic Church';
> Not the Kings of Europe, not the Chief of any Tribe, not the 'Space Aliens'...
> It is God's creation, and that is why...
>
> You can see what happens when you pray to other 'gods'...
> People pray to sex, drugs, money, gurus, TV personalities, rap stars,
> gangsters, all manner of things...
>
> Stay safe...stick with God...
> He or She is all Compassionate, all Loving, all Giving...
> Creator of All...
>
> 'Hear, Oh! Israel, The Lord is One'...
>
> R.J.G.
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go > > > with your gut and your intuition and your natural > > > love for your own son, or do you go with the > > > belief that you are, in fact, talking to such > > > a being as "God," and that being is telling you > > > to do something unimaginable and horrific? > > > (snip) > > > > You go with your 'Gut' because you gut has been around for > > millions of years, programmed in your stranded DNA... > > Your 'Intuition is Connected to your Heart'..so that would also, > > be a 'Good Clue'... > > > > So, faith, comes from trusting your instincts... > > Faith doesn't come, from following leaders, but rather thinking > > and feeling, for: 'What's Right for You!'... > > Naturally, I agree with you. However, might I > point out that the TM TB whom I mentioned in > the previous post who said often that he would > willingly kill anyone that Maharishi told him to > kill used as his justification for this the Bhagavad- > Gita? > > One way of viewing the essential message of the > Bhagavad-Gita is, "Do what you're told to do." > (snip) This is where, translations, can be tricky... I think the appropriate translation, would be: 'Do Your Duty'..Do your Dharma... My father, joined the Army, when he was 17.. He didn't know, what he was in store for, at the time, I'm sure... But, once he was on the battlefield, he had to fight, or die... And if he didn't fight the evil, then he wouldn't have done what he came here to do, this time, around... I don't know why so many souls, decided to participate, in that thing called: World War II... There must have been a 'Cosmic Agreement' to participate in such a horror... Hard to know the answers here, because all the effects of karma are unfathomable... My father, was shocked, like so many others, at the end of the war, when he saw, what had happened in the concentration camps... Because he was Jewish, and a total warrior, he couldn't get why they didn't fight back... I think that really 'Freaked Him out'...more that anything... Man's inhumanity to man, is most freaky... Must be: 'The Devil made me do It!'... R.J.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > > Is that why He is a ' Jealous God '.?? He says "I am a Jealous > God." How can a God be Jealous.?? (snip) God never promised 'Eternal Damnation in Hell'... Hell is created by humans on earth... God as nothing to do with it... It is do to the human ego...which is the enemy of all life on earth... God is Jealous? Don't know if that's an exact translation... But, the interpretation is that it is 'God's Creation'... Not your's, and not mind, not Donald Trump, not Mick Jagger, not George W. Bush, not the money, not the government, not the 'Catholic Church'; Not the Kings of Europe, not the Chief of any Tribe, not the 'Space Aliens'... It is God's creation, and that is why... You can see what happens when you pray to other 'gods'... People pray to sex, drugs, money, gurus, TV personalities, rap stars, gangsters, all manner of things... Stay safe...stick with God... He or She is all Compassionate, all Loving, all Giving... Creator of All... 'Hear, Oh! Israel, The Lord is One'... R.J.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
EELY choose the leaders in frequent intervals. Democracy presupposes freedom of all parties, individuals, to freely compete for all positions of power. Freedom of thought presupposes that all parties are allowed to compete unhindered. It is the people who after hearing and listening to all sides may vote for any one that they want. BLIND OBEDIENCE is the enemy of free thought. BLIND OBEDIENCE is the enemy of reason. BLIND OBEDIENCE to any leader is supporting a dictator. BLIND OBEDIENCE is the father of totalitarianism and dictatorship. It is no accident that Stalin had suppressed many of the works of Marx. Once a group of French workers who had read the Communist Manifesto went to Marx and gave him a list of 10 or so positions and proposed to him that they were establishing a party with the ideology of "MARXISM." Karl Marx looked at the 10 demands that were accurately taken out of Communist Manifesto. He thought for a second or two, and replied: "j'n se pas Marxist." [I am not a Marxist]. For Marx, liberation was not a bunch of people following a set platform and following a leader. For Marx, socialism was a society where the workers themselves would rule the society. Marx may have been wrong in assuming that the workers themselves through un-mediated role of the politicians and leaders could directly control the means of production and the running of the society. But Marx was right in the sense that placing him [Marx] as the sole ruler of a society would not be liberation, for workers were replacing one overlord (the capitalist) with another overlord. Liberation may occurs when the people themselves run their lives. Marx had assumed that it could be done without the mediation of a democratic state. In hindsight, we see that democracy could exist although through a REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM. The actual history of the world has illustrated that if we want to develop politically, economically, socially, we have to open our eyes and learn from the achievements and failures of others. If we do not want to replace one form of dictatorship with another, we have to have the courage to stand up to all those who demand BLIND OBEDIENCE. We have to use our mind, and ask for logical explanations. We have to ask for freedom and democracy inside political parties as well as outside political parties. Democracy requires that we accept the rights of others to hold different views, perspectives, analysis and tactics. The acceptance of plurality of views is a requirement of democracy. We should avoid character assassinations of those merely because they hold a different perspective than one's own. Democracy is based on the agreement that political differences be resolved peacefully and through going to the people for THEIR votes. This as I mentioned earlier requires respect for the freedom of others to hold opposing viewpoints and ideologies. --- On Tue, 10/20/09, TurquoiseB wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:37 AM First, I get the feeling you didn't notice that the story/illustration of Abraham and Issac was only the first of several such illustrations. There are more. Click the buttons in the upper right. Second, it's important IMO to remember that this isn't Robert's story -- it is the literal text of the Book Of Genesis...the "Word Of God" if you prefer. The interesting thing about the story of Issac and Abraham is that it's not only about faith, it's about the *prioritization* of faith. Abraham, like you, loves his son. On the other hand, he is under the impression that God not only talks to him personally, but *when* he talks to him, has told him in no uncertain terms to slaughter his own son like a cow and roast him up like he was the main dish at the annual Temple barbeque. So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go with your gut and your intuition and your natural love for your own son, or do you go with the belief that you are, in fact, talking to such a being as "God," and that being is telling you to do something unimaginable and horrific? Abraham obviously goes for Door Number Two. He decides that his "inner vision" (which arguably could be pure delusion) is more important than society's laws, or than his own love for his own son. He has *no problem* butchering up his own kid and turning him into a crispy critter offer- ing to God. In the original story, he is stopped before he does it, and God tells him that it was all just a "test of faith." He says to Abraham, "Do not reach out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him. For now I know that you *FEAR GOD*, and you have not held back your only son from *ME*." So what are we to make of this story? God turns out not to be a slaughterer of young children, merely an egotistical sadist. He does all of this just to fin
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Many org's promise you the moon.! Some religions promise you a paradise after you die. Suffer here and be happy in the paradise. but the TM-org promises you a heaven right here on earth. In other words, No suffering here and the 'poof' into the Brahman. --- On Tue, 10/20/09, yifuxero wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 12:36 PM true!...good metaphorical analogy; except that in MMY/TM model, if one attains Unity (the supposed ultimate pinnacle of evolution); there's no place to "go" in terms of evolution. Then, (per Jerry J.): after Unity then physical death, there's no more existence (relatively speaking) period. Thus, coming back to embrace the Son doesn't work as a parallel after death. In other words, what MMY is saying (in essence) is that we spend eons of time on the evolutionary path only to attain Unity and "poof" - no more existence! This is funny; since if that's the goal of TM, it's just the opposite of the "Kingdom" alluded to in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. In Fundamentalist analysis, the ultimate, most horrific/undesirabl e fate to be avoided is not suffering eternally in Hell (which is bad enough); but "death of the Soul". So that's what MMY's course in insanity amounts to: the very fate Evangelical Christians hope to avoid at all costs! ...most interesting!
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
true!...good metaphorical analogy; except that in MMY/TM model, if one attains Unity (the supposed ultimate pinnacle of evolution); there's no place to "go" in terms of evolution. Then, (per Jerry J.): after Unity then physical death, there's no more existence (relatively speaking) period. Thus, coming back to embrace the Son doesn't work as a parallel after death. In other words, what MMY is saying (in essence) is that we spend eons of time on the evolutionary path only to attain Unity and "poof" - no more existence! This is funny; since if that's the goal of TM, it's just the opposite of the "Kingdom" alluded to in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition. In Fundamentalist analysis, the ultimate, most horrific/undesirable fate to be avoided is not suffering eternally in Hell (which is bad enough); but "death of the Soul". So that's what MMY's course in insanity amounts to: the very fate Evangelical Christians hope to avoid at all costs! ...most interesting! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > > [SNIP] > > > > Commenting on the story of Abraham and Isaac, Robert says: > > > > > Hey Barry, > > I really have no comment on that particular story...as it is too weird for > > me... > > I have a very beautiful son, and could never consider such a thing... > > It would be against everything I believe in... > > > > I don't know where a lot of these crazy stories come from... > > > [SNIP] > > > Actually, Robert, you sacrifice your beloved son each and every time you > transcend which, by the way, is the raison d'etre of the story. > > When you transcend, you let go of -- sacrifice to the relative world -- all > your attachments to the relative world. Indeed, you can't enter the Kingdom > of Heaven without doing so. Because the story of Abraham and Isaac involves > the instruction by God to Abraham to sacrifice his son, the greatest > attachment and possession a father can have, the story illustrates that it is > the ENTIRE relative world that is sacrificed when we transcend because if the > most precious attachment is let go, then so too must the entire world be > given up. > > What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the way, > lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along with all > the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come out of the > transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your son! Yes, you > sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering the Kingdom but > he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the dissolution of the > universe, too. > > So each and every time you transcend, you not only sacrifice and destroy your > son but you dissolve the universe, too! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > > Is that why He is a ' Jealous God '.?? He says "I am a Jealous > God." How can a God be Jealous.?? > > He also promises eternal damnation in hell.!! for disbelief of > course. What kind of a sadist would give you an Eternity in Hell.?? > For the most part, Jason, although you are addressing Westerners from the Judeo/Christian tradition, to be sure, we are NOT representative of those whom we live amongst. We are, like youself I presume, more Hindu than Christian or Jewish (you are in India, aren't you, Jason?). So I suspect you won't get much disagreement from this crowd with your exasperated observations of "jealous God" and "eternal damnation in hell" and "sadist" to describe the religion(s) of those we live amongst as we're probably all wondering about that stuff, too. > --- On Tue, 10/20/09, authfriend wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis > Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 10:11 AM > > > Nicely done, Shemp. Terrific insight. Quite beyond the > literalists among us, though, I fear, who prefer to > understand the story to be portraying God as an > "egotistical sadist." > > --- "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > > > > What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the > > way, lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along > > with all the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come > > out of the transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your > > son! Yes, you sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering > > the Kingdom but he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the > > dissolution of the universe, too. > > > > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > > As a result of the experience, I came to the conclusion > > that the entire Bible -- as well as all of the Vedas and > > all the religions' holy books -- all exist just above > > pure consciousness (Ritam level?)and we all have access > > to them through listening to their words or stories in > > waking state of consciousness through our own traditions > > (e.g., going to church or temple and hearing them) and > > then transcending and having these words or images -- > > still fresh in our minds from the hearing -- resonate > > with the transcendent. > > Beautiful. Very much in line with the most valuable > insight I've had as a result of TM practice and MMY's > teaching, that of (in thoroughly inadequate shorthand) > religion as metaphor. (Not that MMY is the only one to > teach this by any means, but it becomes fully > meaningful only with transcending). > > Wish I had more time (and posts) to talk about it with > you. Maybe next week. Thanks for planting the seed, > anyway. > For me, there are only two others that have come close to Maharishi in explaining "religion as metaphor" (for lack of a better expression). One is Joseph Campbell and the other is -- believe it or not! -- Rev. Ike. Yes, Rev. Ike nay be the epitome of hucksterism and "send me money and you'll be saved" school of fraud but scratch beneath the surface and the guy explains consciousness in a way that will blow you away. As for your use of "metaphor" to explain the phenomenon I've attempted to relate, I have searched and pondered for years what the best word is. And I've concluded it's probably a combination (NOT of equal measure) of some or all of the following: Metaphor Archetype Cognition Ritam experience Allegory Analogy Personification Symbol Simile Figuration Representation
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
I would trade all of your crummy Zelig meets and greets, including seeing and even doing what you think is levitation, for one chance to meet Robert Crumb. That's how cool I think this uber-Nerd is. So, yes, I am jealous that you know him (assuming you haven't imagined it as you have the levitation). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > By the way, because I know it will push all of > Shemp's jealousy buttons and make him crazy that > I've met interesting people in my life and he > hasn't :-), I'll mention that Rachel in slide > #5 in this presentation is based on my best > friend Laurel. Like me, she lived next door to > Robert Crumb for several years, and in fact did > the graphical layout for a few of his books. > She didn't know until today that he'd put her > in the book. > > So far I haven't found myself in the book at all, > slthough I have found several of the people we > knew in Sauve. But you can be sure that if I do > I'll let you know, just to watch Shemp's head > explode in a fit of apoplexy. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I'm still reading the book, and don't want to > > comment on it until I've finished, but Robert > > comments on a few of the illustrations here: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/18/arts/20091018-SALK_index.html > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Is that why He is a ' Jealous God '.?? He says "I am a Jealous God." How can a God be Jealous.?? He also promises eternal damnation in hell.!! for disbelief of course. What kind of a sadist would give you an Eternity in Hell.?? --- On Tue, 10/20/09, authfriend wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 10:11 AM Nicely done, Shemp. Terrific insight. Quite beyond the literalists among us, though, I fear, who prefer to understand the story to be portraying God as an "egotistical sadist." --- "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the way, > lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along with all > the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come out of the > transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your son! Yes, you > sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering the Kingdom but > he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the dissolution of the > universe, too. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > As a result of the experience, I came to the conclusion > that the entire Bible -- as well as all of the Vedas and > all the religions' holy books -- all exist just above > pure consciousness (Ritam level?)and we all have access > to them through listening to their words or stories in > waking state of consciousness through our own traditions > (e.g., going to church or temple and hearing them) and > then transcending and having these words or images -- > still fresh in our minds from the hearing -- resonate > with the transcendent. Beautiful. Very much in line with the most valuable insight I've had as a result of TM practice and MMY's teaching, that of (in thoroughly inadequate shorthand) religion as metaphor. (Not that MMY is the only one to teach this by any means, but it becomes fully meaningful only with transcending). Wish I had more time (and posts) to talk about it with you. Maybe next week. Thanks for planting the seed, anyway.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > Nicely done, Shemp. Terrific insight. Quite beyond the > literalists among us, though, I fear, who prefer to > understand the story to be portraying God as an > "egotistical sadist." Every time I have related this "interpretation" of the Abraham/Isaac story here on FFL I've gotten only positive feedback. This is about the third or fourth time I've done so. Indeed, even Barry one time gave positive feedback to my telling of the story. I've put "interpretation" in quotation marks because it was actually an experience I had during meditation about 8 years ago. I don't know why I started thinking about this particular biblical story during meditation (perhaps I had seen something on TV about it earlier in the day or something) but I had the entire experience of the episode: the story, the visuals, the transcending, and the meaning. And the experience only lasted an instant...or an eternity. Kinda like the one pure transcending experience I had in my life which was only an instant, yet an eternity. As a result of the experience, I came to the conclusion that the entire Bible -- as well as all of the Vedas and all the religions' holy books -- all exist just above pure consciousness (Ritam level?)and we all have access to them through listening to their words or stories in waking state of consciousness through our own traditions (e.g., going to church or temple and hearing them) and then transcending and having these words or images -- still fresh in our minds from the hearing -- resonate with the transcendent. Perhaps that's why we are subjected on TM courses to listening to endless hours of the Vedas; perhaps that's the purpose. I remember on my six month course during meditation that I had a "vision" (this is going to sound ridiculous) of a cow coming out of a mountain! Really; and the vision consisted of the most beautiful colors: blue sky, green grass and a cow struggling to free himself from the side of a hill. Of course, there is a line in the 10th mandala I believe it is that mentions "a cow coming out of the mountain" and the only explanation I can give for why I had that exact experience is that I had heard it during the hours-long sessions we had of listening to the 10th mandala that we were reading to each other. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > > > Actually, Robert, you sacrifice your beloved son each and every time you > > transcend which, by the way, is the raison d'etre of the story. > > > > When you transcend, you let go of -- sacrifice to the relative world -- all > > your attachments to the relative world. Indeed, you can't enter the > > Kingdom of Heaven without doing so. Because the story of Abraham and Isaac > > involves the instruction by God to Abraham to sacrifice his son, the > > greatest attachment and possession a father can have, the story illustrates > > that it is the ENTIRE relative world that is sacrificed when we transcend > > because if the most precious attachment is let go, then so too must the > > entire world be given up. > > > > What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the > > way, lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along > > with all the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come > > out of the transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your > > son! Yes, you sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering > > the Kingdom but he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the > > dissolution of the universe, too. > > > > So each and every time you transcend, you not only sacrifice and destroy > > your son but you dissolve the universe, too! >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Nicely done, Shemp. Terrific insight. Quite beyond the literalists among us, though, I fear, who prefer to understand the story to be portraying God as an "egotistical sadist." --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" wrote: > Actually, Robert, you sacrifice your beloved son each and every time you > transcend which, by the way, is the raison d'etre of the story. > > When you transcend, you let go of -- sacrifice to the relative world -- all > your attachments to the relative world. Indeed, you can't enter the Kingdom > of Heaven without doing so. Because the story of Abraham and Isaac involves > the instruction by God to Abraham to sacrifice his son, the greatest > attachment and possession a father can have, the story illustrates that it is > the ENTIRE relative world that is sacrificed when we transcend because if the > most precious attachment is let go, then so too must the entire world be > given up. > > What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the way, > lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along with all > the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come out of the > transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your son! Yes, you > sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering the Kingdom but > he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the dissolution of the > universe, too. > > So each and every time you transcend, you not only sacrifice and destroy your > son but you dissolve the universe, too!
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: [SNIP] Commenting on the story of Abraham and Isaac, Robert says: > Hey Barry, > I really have no comment on that particular story...as it is too weird for > me... > I have a very beautiful son, and could never consider such a thing... > It would be against everything I believe in... > > I don't know where a lot of these crazy stories come from... [SNIP] Actually, Robert, you sacrifice your beloved son each and every time you transcend which, by the way, is the raison d'etre of the story. When you transcend, you let go of -- sacrifice to the relative world -- all your attachments to the relative world. Indeed, you can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven without doing so. Because the story of Abraham and Isaac involves the instruction by God to Abraham to sacrifice his son, the greatest attachment and possession a father can have, the story illustrates that it is the ENTIRE relative world that is sacrificed when we transcend because if the most precious attachment is let go, then so too must the entire world be given up. What's wonderful about the reality of Abraham and Isaac -- which, by the way, lives in our consciousness as knowledge on the level of Ritam along with all the Biblical stories and the Vedas, etc. -- is that AFTER you come out of the transcendent (i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven) you get back your son! Yes, you sacrificed him and he disappeared as a criterion of entering the Kingdom but he's there for you to enjoy once you return from the dissolution of the universe, too. So each and every time you transcend, you not only sacrifice and destroy your son but you dissolve the universe, too!
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
TurquoiseB wrote: > One way of viewing the essential message of the > Bhagavad-Gita is, "Do what you're told to do"... > You sure screwed up on this one, Barry. The main gist of the Bhagavad Gita is to give up the ownership of your own actions. "Actions are in every case performed by the gunas of Nature. He whose mind is deluded by the sense of 'I' holds 'I am the doer'." - Bhagavad Gita "Out of the mist,on a moonlit night,comes Bagger Vance. "A man's grip on his club, just like a man's grip on his world" are the first words of wisdom the mysterious stranger imparts to a once promising golfer." Read more: 'The Legend of Bagger Vance' Starring: Will Smith, Matt Damon, and Bruce McGill Dreamworks, 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5berb8 Author: Willytex Subject: Another Bigger Vance Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: Thursday, January 29, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/6b9288
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > (snip) > > So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go > > with your gut and your intuition and your natural > > love for your own son, or do you go with the > > belief that you are, in fact, talking to such > > a being as "God," and that being is telling you > > to do something unimaginable and horrific? > > (snip) > > You go with your 'Gut' because you gut has been around for > millions of years, programmed in your stranded DNA... > Your 'Intuition is Connected to your Heart'..so that would also, > be a 'Good Clue'... > > So, faith, comes from trusting your instincts... > Faith doesn't come, from following leaders, but rather thinking > and feeling, for: 'What's Right for You!'... Naturally, I agree with you. However, might I point out that the TM TB whom I mentioned in the previous post who said often that he would willingly kill anyone that Maharishi told him to kill used as his justification for this the Bhagavad- Gita? One way of viewing the essential message of the Bhagavad-Gita is, "Do what you're told to do." It's not the *only* way of viewing it, of course, but I contend that it's equally as valid as any of the more "spiritual" ways that people view it. Can the dialog between Krishna and Arjuna *not* be boiled down to: Arjuna: "I'm confused. I'm being told to kill my kinsen over a petty squabble. I don't think this is right. It does not feel like dharma to me." Krishna: "The message I bring to you from the gods is essentially, 'Do what you're told to do by your betters -- they are not only better than you are, but wiser and more holy. To do what you are told to do is to follow the path of dharma.'" Arjuna: "But how do we know who our 'betters' are?" Krishna: "You just know. Besides, we tell you."
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
By the way, because I know it will push all of Shemp's jealousy buttons and make him crazy that I've met interesting people in my life and he hasn't :-), I'll mention that Rachel in slide #5 in this presentation is based on my best friend Laurel. Like me, she lived next door to Robert Crumb for several years, and in fact did the graphical layout for a few of his books. She didn't know until today that he'd put her in the book. So far I haven't found myself in the book at all, slthough I have found several of the people we knew in Sauve. But you can be sure that if I do I'll let you know, just to watch Shemp's head explode in a fit of apoplexy. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I'm still reading the book, and don't want to > comment on it until I've finished, but Robert > comments on a few of the illustrations here: > > http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/18/arts/20091018-SALK_index.html >
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
(snip) > So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go > with your gut and your intuition and your natural > love for your own son, or do you go with the > belief that you are, in fact, talking to such > a being as "God," and that being is telling you > to do something unimaginable and horrific? > (snip) You go with your 'Gut' because you gut has been around for millions of years, programmed in your stranded DNA... Your 'Intuition is Connected to your Heart'..so that would also, be a 'Good Clue'... So, faith, comes from trusting your instincts... Faith doesn't come, from following leaders, but rather thinking and feeling, for: 'What's Right for You!'... The clueless path, is when you begin to 'Intellectualize Your Choice'...and don't follow your own heart... This is done, by your parents, your church, your society, your TV, your radio, your billboards, all of it, is to make you into a sheep, so you can be manipulated... When you decide that you are no longer going to be 'Manipulated by your own insane mind, which is connected to the mass idiocy'... Then you have the chance to 'Be Yourself..'. Not someone in the 'Bible' Not someone who is a 'Guru'... Not anyone but you... Because you come into this world alone... And will leave the same way... But, in the end... The love you take, is equal to the love, you make... R.J.G. (with a little help from my friends)...
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > I'm still reading the book, and don't want to > > comment on it until I've finished, but Robert > > comments on a few of the illustrations here: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/18/arts/20091018-SALK_index.html > > Hey Barry, > I really have no comment on that particular story...as it > is too weird for me... > I have a very beautiful son, and could never consider such > a thing... > It would be against everything I believe in... First, I get the feeling you didn't notice that the story/illustration of Abraham and Issac was only the first of several such illustrations. There are more. Click the buttons in the upper right. Second, it's important IMO to remember that this isn't Robert's story -- it is the literal text of the Book Of Genesis...the "Word Of God" if you prefer. The interesting thing about the story of Issac and Abraham is that it's not only about faith, it's about the *prioritization* of faith. Abraham, like you, loves his son. On the other hand, he is under the impression that God not only talks to him personally, but *when* he talks to him, has told him in no uncertain terms to slaughter his own son like a cow and roast him up like he was the main dish at the annual Temple barbeque. So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go with your gut and your intuition and your natural love for your own son, or do you go with the belief that you are, in fact, talking to such a being as "God," and that being is telling you to do something unimaginable and horrific? Abraham obviously goes for Door Number Two. He decides that his "inner vision" (which arguably could be pure delusion) is more important than society's laws, or than his own love for his own son. He has *no problem* butchering up his own kid and turning him into a crispy critter offer- ing to God. In the original story, he is stopped before he does it, and God tells him that it was all just a "test of faith." He says to Abraham, "Do not reach out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him. For now I know that you *FEAR GOD*, and you have not held back your only son from *ME*." So what are we to make of this story? God turns out not to be a slaughterer of young children, merely an egotistical sadist. He does all of this just to find out whether Abraham FEARS him enough. How many people do you know in spiritual pursuits who would do the same thing that Abraham did if their "inner visions" told them to? Sadly, I know quite a few. I used to know one guy in the TMO who said often that he would kill anyone Maharishi told him to kill, because that would be the way of dharma and the will of Nature. > I don't know where a lot of these crazy stories come from... I think they come from people who are so attached to their subjective experiences and beliefs that they are willing to prioritize them over common sense and intuition and the laws of society and instead commit atrocities in the name of their "spirituality." This story is timeless because we see it around us every day. Guys who oppose abortion blow up clinics and kill doctors in the name of God. Suicide bombers do the same thing. > From the Jewish/Christian tradition, I am more into the > Psalms of David, and the basic teaching of Jesus... Which is probably why so many Jews felt that Jesus was a breath of fresh air compared to the heavy- handed stuff they read in their scriptures. Robert decided to illustrate these stories because they are ageless. We see the same stories around us every day, and in our headlines.
[FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > I'm still reading the book, and don't want to > comment on it until I've finished, but Robert > comments on a few of the illustrations here: > > http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/10/18/arts/20091018-SALK_index.html > Hey Barry, I really have no comment on that particular story...as it is too weird for me... I have a very beautiful son, and could never consider such a thing... It would be against everything I believe in... I don't know where a lot of these crazy stories come from... >From the Jewish/Christian tradition, I am more into the Psalms of David, and >the basic teaching of Jesus... The rest of the religious stuff, is interesting, and I like the ornate decorations in the Churches and Synogogs, but other than that, I have nothing to do with 'Religion'... I am Jewish by birth, and by nature...I don't consider myself 'Superior in any way... Just 'Chosen'... But, then again, we're all 'Chosen'...aren't we? To be or not to be, that is the QUESTION! R.J.G.
