--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Suffice to say 'Ved' is a word that is used by a vast culture.
It
gives us our word 'wisdom', 'Wizard', ('Witch' may be a version
of
it), also 'vision'. Even ' the three wise men' of the Bible, who
came from the East, cannot escape. (They are also called ' the
Majii' which gives us our word 'magician', and I wonder is it is
related to the word 'maya'.)
'Ved' means 'knowledge' or 'wisdom'.
If a Vedic culture exists 2,000 years from now, then it may
infuse
aspects of our science into it (those that are life-supporting,
evolutionary, and useful) and drop the non-useful aspects. It
may
call its knowledge collection 'Knowledge', 'Wisdom ', or 'Ved'.
Vedic culture (which just means wisdom) assimilates useful
knowledge. (like the Borg:-) That is its nature.
If aspects of Buddhism are found useful they too will be
incorporated. I also assume aspects of the Vedic tradition that
are
nto useful to evolution, if such there be, will be dropped.
Perhaps
that what Buddha was trying to do, but it happens in a more
natural
way, on a human level. Although Maharishi is definately engaged
in
trying to re-estblish a system by which to live.
If ved is simply knowledge, and vedic culture a set of social
systems to collect and perhaps systematize such knowledge, then
most
knowledge traditions would lay claim to doing such -- almost by
definition. (Deeply) paraphrasing, muslims may say Allah is Truth,
and
all knowledge that is true is Allah. Replace Allah with Ved,
Christ, Tao, the Great Father, Mother Divine, the holy
spirit, Science, etc., and you have the prouncements of most if
not
all knowledge traditions. Why should Ved be given special status
among all the other synonyms? Is doing so simply an ethno-
centric
type (or parallel sort) of bias?
I think this is an interesting line of thinking that this discussion
has meandered to.
Yes, I think it is all Ved ('wisdom'). Maharishi has always said
that also. I agree with him on this. For example, he stated that the
Tao te Ching was one of the Vedas, and indicated Buddha as a
enlightened saint.
Ved is not given special status under the relentless law of nature
that provides that 'that which is closest to the truth lasts
longest'. Nothing can survive the relentless onslaught of that law.
It is wisdom we seek as humans. If it is called 'Ved', or 'Wisdom',
or 'science ' seems unimportant. If it is useful it will last and be
incorporated. We are, in fact, the Borg. We can't get around it.
One last point though. In answer to a question asked of him
regarding the name of the Ved, Maharishi said that 'Ved' was the
name it liked to be called by. So , presumably if that is true, then
the word 'Ved' will last as its nomenclature, otherwise it will be
dropped in favor of something else. Seems unlikely at this point
since we use the word even in English every day.wise, wisdom,
vision, ved. They are all basically the same word, with different
flavors.
If Ved are the fundamental impulses of the universe -- then perhaps
there is a stronger case for preeminance. Except again, adherents
to
many knowldge traditions will make similar claims -- perhaps along
the
lines of (but not quoting specific doctrine -- just a speculative
example) Christ is the fundamental impulse of the Universe.
Replace
with Allah, Tao and again, most knowledge traditions would say
you
are on the right track when you use THEIR word.
It doesn't matter what the claims are. If it is wisdom, it will
(hopefully) last. If it is not, then it will fade. If it is
retained, then it will be assimilated into the greater body of
wisdom of mankind as we evolve , and that body of wisdom will be
given a name.
Right now we call it 'Human knowledge', which is interesting because
even the words 'human' and 'knowledge' both contain a Sanskrit root.
Perhaps the qualification life-supporting, useful or
evolutionary knowledge will provide some insight to solve this
quandry. But these are all words that CAN be the output of a
system of
ethics, or tradions of behavior - perhaps suited to a particular
age
and geography, not necessarily fundamental a priori truths.
Muslim fundamentalists may hold that women not voting or driving is
evolutionary. Hindus may claim that preventing caste intermarriage
or
social interaction is evolutionary. How can one tell if a some new
knowledge is evolutionary?
Yes , we certainly need to have some trust of nature in this
transition phase. Or if one prefers to say , we put our faith in the
only hope for human-kind: A law of nature that provides: That which
is closest to the truth lasts longest
Does anyone know this phrase in Sanskrit? or related phrases, and
where it is sourced to?
snip At this
