|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
 Posted - Aug 02 2006 : 4:59:11 PM
|
I suppose I want to say I'm basically against spiritual teachers restricting and controlling their teachings after their deaths, and even too much during their lives. Especially in this age, in which there is something like the internet which can preserve and spread recorded teachings with great ease.
I started a new topic from
http://aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1363
because this isn't really specific to the Barry Long thread.
Trip1 said:
The idea of a foundation is at its root a good one, as I would think that most are conceived in order to uphold the teachings in their original form. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a few instances where just the opposite has happened, and it is discouraging to see a good idea go bad once the enlightened guy (or girl) has left the building.
I agree that that tends to be some of the thinking behind the setting up of the foundation. But part of 'the rot' can be coming from the fact that the original teacher is missing something important.
If I make some realization, it may be, for me, great relative to what I saw before, but it is a mistake for me to think any of the following things:
(i) that it can be preserved as I had it
(ii) that is should be preserved as I had it
(iii) that my realization is ultimate and can't be improved
(iv) that a deviation from the form in which I experienced and interpret it is a degeneration
If I made any of these mistakes, it would amount to inflation on my part, overestimation of myself, and my realization, relative to humanity at large.
With this in mind, I'd be likely only to help set up a foundation only to support my teachings, not to control and limit them for 'spiritual purposes'. Those who do the latter in this contemporary age are I think largely motivated out of inadequate self-myths. The teachings should go out in the world and ferment and mutate, just as did Blues, Jazz and Rock'n'Roll. The foundation should be for support, not control. What would we say to one of the Jazz pioneers if they set out to preserve the music exactly as they produced it? Would one not say, 'Come down off your high horse, you aren't the first, last and only, and let the music spread and grow'.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 02 2006 5:00:16 PM |
|
|
trip1
USA
739 Posts |
Posted - Aug 03 2006 : 12:39:58 AM
|
Hi David,
You bring up some interesting points on this topic. First, I just wanted to bring over my post from the other thread, as I still see it as being relevant here:
quote:
The main reasons that I personally wouldn't say all of the teachings would be (1) if the teacher leaves behind a family, and (2) if the teacher has left behind ashrams or schools which are partially dependent on the sale of books, recordings, etc.
The idea of a foundation is at its root a good one, as I would think that most are conceived in order to uphold the teachings in their original form. Unfortunately, we have seen quite a few instances where just the opposite has happened, and it is discouraging to see a good idea go bad once the enlightened guy (or girl) has left the building.
Continuing with these thoughts..
One of the questions I think lies in if the teachings can possibly be upheld and taught in their original context by those who have not experienced these profound realizations themselves. The answer to this seems to vary from teacher to teacher, and unfortunately only someone in this position could explain their reasoning behind it.
In other instances where a student who has also attained these realizations is able to carry on the teachings, I think it would be the obvious choice to a teacher, and also brings the idea of lineages into the equation. This and the above are just a few more speculations as to why a spiritual teacher may push in this direction as opposed to the open source option.
As far as the "mutation" aspect that you mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is the current state of Christianity and the likes, which to me seems like the result of many years of misunderstanding the original teachings. In this case, the teachings have mutated in a negative direction, which I unfortunately feel would be the case in most scenarios of this sort.
Looking at the other side, the Integral Spirituality currently being developed at the Integral Institute certainly shows that an open source format can work when used in the proper context. Conferences are currently being held with top spiritual teachers from all traditions/religions, and through combining the best teachings & practices of each, an entirely new branch of spirituality is being developed. Interestingly enough, AYP seems to have been developed using a similar integral system on a smaller scale.
I can see where you were going with the analogy, but can we really compare spiritual teachings to music? Music would fall in the "creative" category, while I feel that realizations are not created, but experienced or attained. While I agree that any creation can go through great changes for the best as you have pointed out, I feel that spiritual teachings may not fit this category.
Probably the most fascinating thing which I have found in spiritual teachings written by enlightened beings, is that all of them are basically relaying the same messages at the core. This is what leads me to believe that the same realizations are shared by many, and not created by any one individual. It is only the personal way of expressing these realizations which sets the teachers apart, and keeps me reading their books.
My sincere apologies if I'm rambling here. This is an excellent subject, and I look forward to furthering the study of it.  |
Edited by - trip1 on Aug 03 2006 01:39:50 AM |
 |
|
|
yogani
USA
5198 Posts |
Posted - Aug 03 2006 : 09:52:47 AM
|
Hi David and Trip:
Perhaps relating the integrated open source evolution of spiritual knowledge to the applied sciences would be more appropriate, as the methods for cultivating the known characteristics of human spiritual transformation are refined to become increasingly efficient over time.
Of course there is art in this too. We might call it "style," seeking a positive outcome like science does.
However we look at the open source evolution of spiritual knowledge, as art or as science, it is very different from the rigid approach in the closed source systems.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 03 2006 : 12:03:50 PM
|
Thanks Trip and Yogani for your comments.
Trip said:
As far as the "mutation" aspect that you mentioned, the first thing that comes to mind is the current state of Christianity and the likes, which to me seems like the result of many years of misunderstanding the original teachings. In this case, the teachings have mutated in a negative direction, which I unfortunately feel would be the case in most scenarios of this sort.
Well, Christianity started 2000 years ago. That was then. Human consciousness was entirely different then. Maybe, indeed, the best way to preserve spiritual teaching was different then.
( However, even if you grant that, it isn't clear that "control" was so helpful even then. Some of the worst of what went wrong is related to the worst aspects of control. )
Times have changed. We aren't as naive as we were. We know much more. We have evolved in many directions. Those who experience deep spiritual states aren't as uncommon as they used to be. The myth of the Almighty Guru is dissolving. 'We are the ones we have been waiting for'.
Some of the stuff that is going on with spiritual teachers is that they aren't adapting. They aren't grasping the times very well. They are stuck in the old myths, and so are their chelas. If you have a strong message and distill it well, there are plenty of people who can be influenced by it. And I think putting the message out there for free for all is about the best thing you can do these days, for maximum influence of the message. ( Of course, if a teacher has to make a buck, I understand charging for it. )
This is for maximum influence of the message. Teachers, being the imperfect beings that they are however, may confuse 'maximum influence of the message-identified-as-theirs' with 'maximum influence of the message'. By this I mean that when they compare the following two scenarios:
a. their message spreads broadly, integrates into consciousness, gets absorbed and they are forgotten as the source of it
b. their message spreads less broadly, but their is a little foundation somewhere promoting a message identified as theirs
they may make the mistake of thinking that they are more successful in scenario b. than in scenario a. In fact, they are more successful in scenario a., though their image has dissolved. In other words, they may favor small visible gain over large invisible gain.
I can see where you were going with the analogy, but can we really compare spiritual teachings to music?
The analogy has its limits, but is very applicable in some important ways. We could learn stuff from the analogy. Regarding Jazz, it's always been totally clear that the 'Fathers of Jazz' are important human contributors, pioneers, not gods.
Music would fall in the "creative" category, while I feel that realizations are not created, but experienced or attained. <SNIP> Probably the most fascinating thing which I have found in spiritual teachings written by enlightened beings, is that all of them are basically relaying the same messages at the core.
That's a possible difference, but if anything it shows that it is even more true of spiritual teachings than of Jazz, that there is nothing unique or ultimate about a good spiritual realizer; and that therefore, our innate biology, and the community and world at large, are where the real creative and evolving forces are acting, not one little guy on a pedestal, whose works must be preserved for posterity.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 03 2006 3:06:19 PM |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Aug 03 2006 : 3:46:22 PM
|
Enjoying this thread... 
Thank you. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Aug 04 2006 : 3:53:09 PM
|
The worst problem that closed source religions and cults have had is that they don't allow for feedback as to the effectiveness of the teachings. So some teachings (I won't mention names) have evolved into the worship of the words of the original teachings, and the belief that the rewards are to be received at some future time when feedback is no longer possible. How convenient.
So when Yogani mentions AYP as being more like applied sciences, those disciplines thrive on universally repeatable results, and constantly revised truths as a result of feedback.
In these open source sciences, instead of worshipping the words of the original seekers, it is the concept of repeatable results that is valued, and as many contributors repeat those results and publish feedback, the unnecessary or less effective parts fall by the wayside, resulting in a more powerful and easily implemented system.
Such a system increases in effectiveness as it is passed down through the generations as it is continually tested, whereas closed source information tends to lose effectiveness and turn into idol (idle?)worship.
So taken to an extreme, closed source teachings could cause wars. I think. Not sure. . .heh heh. |
|
|
|
riptiz
United Kingdom
741 Posts |
Posted - Aug 05 2006 : 3:28:03 PM
|
Well why don't we take things even further and stop using yogic terms for everything and simply use English terms or then again some other language?I mean we don't need to label pranayama with that term or anything else do we?
L&L
dave |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 05 2006 : 10:12:01 PM
|
I don't think the sanskrit terms are much of an issue -- sometimes they are more specific than their english counterparts. But Yogani for one is often using English terms for things that are often expressed in Sanskrit, like 'spinal breathing'.
Of course, if sanskrit terms are used, they should be explained. |
|
|
|
trip1
USA
739 Posts |
Posted - Aug 07 2006 : 11:20:17 PM
|
Hi Everyone,
Apologies for my tardiness from this great thread.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Well, Christianity started 2000 years ago. That was then. Human consciousness was entirely different then. Maybe, indeed, the best way to preserve spiritual teaching was different then.
( However, even if you grant that, it isn't clear that "control" was so helpful even then. Some of the worst of what went wrong is related to the worst aspects of control. )
Point taken. Although I beg to differ that controlling the teachings wasn’t clearly helpful through millennia past. Who knows what Yoga, much more than 2000 years old, would look like today had the control aspects not been in place.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Times have changed. We aren't as naive as we were. We know much more. We have evolved in many directions. Those who experience deep spiritual states aren't as uncommon as they used to be. The myth of the Almighty Guru is dissolving. 'We are the ones we have been waiting for'.
I believe the answer to our question lies in the factuality of this statement. Unfortunately, I personally feel that it can only be answered through opinion at this time. One point that we may take notice of is that every civilization throughout history has likely believed they were “the ones”, simply for the fact that they were at that moment, the furthest into the future than anyone else had been up to that point. At this moment, we happen to be those individuals, and with nothing from the future to compare ourselves to, we are the most advanced that we know of. This lack of realizing our own limitations is one of the major downfalls of human thought in my opinion, and also one of the ideas that keeps people away from the spiritual path in the modern day.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Some of the stuff that is going on with spiritual teachers is that they aren't adapting. They aren't grasping the times very well. They are stuck in the old myths, and so are their chelas. If you have a strong message and distill it well, there are plenty of people who can be influenced by it. And I think putting the message out there for free for all is about the best thing you can do these days, for maximum influence of the message. ( Of course, if a teacher has to make a buck, I understand charging for it. )
I’m going to have to disagree with you here, based on the studies currently taking place within the United States. While it appears that spiritual teachers may be at a standstill in other parts of the world, there are many teachers pushing the boundaries in this country, and really moving things in a forward direction. They too believe that the old ways desperately need to be updated and are doing so in a way which works with today’s mindset. As someone who seems greatly concerned with the problem at hand, you may find these studies quite interesting.
In this case, any income generated through the teachings would be used to further the studies and the spiritual sciences as a whole, which I think in this scenario gives a fairly decent argument to the idea of charging. Unfortunately in this day and age, the government isn't as generous in handing out grants to spiritual scientists as the rest of the scientific community. 
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
a. their message spreads broadly, integrates into consciousness, gets absorbed and they are forgotten as the source of it
b. their message spreads less broadly, but their is a little foundation somewhere promoting a message identified as theirs
they may make the mistake of thinking that they are more successful in scenario b. than in scenario a. In fact, they are more successful in scenario a., though their image has dissolved. In other words, they may favor small visible gain over large invisible gain.
While I agree that this may happen from time to time, I have a bit of trouble believing that the ratio would lean towards the negative. Scenario b is strongly based in ego, and if a teacher were to choose a route based on their own name being upheld, maybe it’s better off if their teachings are kept under wraps. I’m sure there are many reasons why a teacher would set up a foundation which we can’t even begin to fathom. In my humble opinion, the scenarios above are a bit biased, but if we add a few more options it may be a bit more viable. For instance:
c. their message spreads less broadly, due to an enlightened understanding that this is the likely best option for the proper use of the teachings at this time. (Less individuals overall, but the teachings are used correctly vs. more individuals overall, with the teachings used incorrectly)
d. their message spreads broadly, is widely misunderstood, and the true meaning of the teachings are lost in time.
With these extra scenarios in place, I think the struggle on either side of the equation becomes a bit more apparent. I’m not saying that any of them are right or wrong, just that it isn’t as black and white as we may like to think.
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
In these open source sciences, instead of worshipping the words of the original seekers, it is the concept of repeatable results that is valued, and as many contributors repeat those results and publish feedback, the unnecessary or less effective parts fall by the wayside, resulting in a more powerful and easily implemented system.
This is what I believe is taking place in the studies which were noted above. Through this feedback, these teachers are drawing a literal map to enlightenment based on combining the best of the best into one super system. As mentioned earlier, AYP is apparently the result of a similar process, giving it an edge on many other traditions which remain rooted in history.
I think it may just be a bit early for me to draw any conclusion on this subject, as one side of the equation has only recently been conceived. It will be greatly interesting to find what the future holds for this transformative period in spirituality, and it is a wonderful feeling to be a part of it.
Namaste,
Brett
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2006 : 10:03:21 AM
|
Hi Brett,
thanks for responding...
Brett said:
I’m going to have to disagree with you here, based on the studies currently taking place within the United States. While it appears that spiritual teachers may be at a standstill in other parts of the world, there are many teachers pushing the boundaries in this country, and really moving things in a forward direction.
I agree. Except where you say you disagree with me; I agree with what I said and what you said.
While I agree that this may happen from time to time, I have a bit of trouble believing that the ratio would lean towards the negative. Scenario b is strongly based in ego, and if a teacher were to choose a route based on their own name being upheld,
What is ego? I almost never use the word due to its extreme vagueness. There are dozens of quite different things packed into the word. If a person loses their agressive emotions of superiority, it may be believed that they have become humble and holy, but self-overestimation (inflation) may remain.
This mechanism I am talking about is a little more subtle. It's as much cognitive as emotional. They won't even tend to apprehend scenario a. as a possibility....
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 09 2006 1:38:05 PM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2006 : 12:15:24 PM
|
Hi David
quote:
If a person loses their agressive emotions of superiority, it may be believed that they have become humble and holy, but self-overestimation (inflation) may remain.
This mechanism I am talking about is a little more subtle. It's as much cognitive as emotional. They won't even tend to apprehend scenario a. as a possibility....
Just to clarify: Does the above describe the difference between superiority and the narcissism you often refer to? |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2006 : 1:37:39 PM
|
Hi Louis, I think I have said things like that elsewhere, but haven't done it anywhere with much rigor, so I'm not sure of the language I used.
But I can say this much, maybe it's what you are asking for: one factor that goes into that descriptive bag called ego is narcissism, which is quite a bit more specific. And I have said I think that a warm and loving and 'humble' disposition doesn't at all mean that the narcissism is gone. Perhaps the emotional aggression of it can be gone, but the cognitive level of it can stay there and the entity can remain inflated, in other words, wrongly believing themselves to be greatly superior.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Aug 09 2006 1:38:36 PM |
|
|
|
trip1
USA
739 Posts |
Posted - Aug 09 2006 : 11:23:36 PM
|
Hi David,
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I agree. Except where you say you disagree with me; I agree with what I said and what you said.
I agree with this agreement and therefore no longer disagree. 
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
What is ego? I almost never use the word due to its extreme vagueness. There are dozens of quite different things packed into the word.
You are completely right. The word that I meant and should have used is "selfish".
On a side note, maybe we could get into the topic of ego and its meanings sometime as I feel it could make for a great discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
If a person loses their agressive emotions of superiority, it may be believed that they have become humble and holy, but self-overestimation (inflation) may remain.
This mechanism I am talking about is a little more subtle. It's as much cognitive as emotional. They won't even tend to apprehend scenario a. as a possibility....
I see, and agree that it may happen from time to time. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I still think the ratio of this becoming a problem in enlightened spiritual teachers would lean towards the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
But I can say this much, maybe it's what you are asking for: one factor that goes into that descriptive bag called ego is narcissism, which is quite a bit more specific. And I have said I think that a warm and loving and 'humble' disposition doesn't at all mean that the narcissism is gone. Perhaps the emotional aggression of it can be gone, but the cognitive level of it can stay there and the entity can remain inflated, in other words, wrongly believing themselves to be greatly superior.
Excellent point. If we use Ken Wilber's "levels and lines" map of consciousness, it becomes quite clear how an individual can be extremely advanced in the horizontal spiritual line, yet still be at a very low vertical level of consciousness. On the other hand, one may be highly advanced in the spiritual line and the vertical levels while still deficient in many other lines of development. I think either of these two scenarios (as an example) could easily lead to the problem which you have described.
Using this map of consciousness, it may now be possible to understand the root of the problem (on an individual level) and deal with it using a set of techniques designed to excel the individual exactly where they are lacking. If these studies prove correct, it could very well be the beginning of the end to the problem you speak of.
Apologies if I sound like a Ken Wilber advertisement in recent posts. The theories have just fit in quite well with the discussions at hand. 
Namaste,
Brett |
Edited by - trip1 on Aug 09 2006 11:37:54 PM |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Aug 10 2006 : 04:42:17 AM
|
David said:quote:
But I can say this much, maybe it's what you are asking for: one factor that goes into that descriptive bag called ego is narcissism, which is quite a bit more specific. And I have said I think that a warm and loving and 'humble' disposition doesn't at all mean that the narcissism is gone. Perhaps the emotional aggression of it can be gone, but the cognitive level of it can stay there and the entity can remain inflated, in other words, wrongly believing themselves to be greatly superior.
Sorry to be butting in on this great conversation, but now that I've started I may as well go on a little.
The difference between narcissiam and superior is often a bit blurred to me. I was told once that a person with a stong superiority complex could be helped with therapy whereas a person with stong narcissism could not.
This sort of distinction led me to the conclusion that a predominently narcissistic person had such absolute convicion that they were superior in some particular way, or in fact generally, that there was no issue about this, it was fact.
If you agree with this interpretation of narcissism would you still apply it to a person who has spent their whole life devoted to spiritual development?
Personally I see my superiority rearing its head on a constant basis at every level. No matter how much work I do there is alway another layer. Its like it is self generating, the more advanced we become the more superior -ooops yes another bit of work to do, get over that one and the spiral continues. The only way out is in "being" where time stands still and we get out of the dulaistic polarities of superior/inferior.
As long as we are of this world then the superior/inferior thing is always present, I would guess just as much and maybe even more so for a fully realised enlightened person as for me.
Perhaps it is possible then that when someone is constantly being revered and being treated like a saint that narcissism my start creeping in, that they start believing in their superiority - I don't know.
Perhaps if a person is in a state of blissful being too much at the expense of self-enquiry, then the horizontal and vertical levels that trip refers to get out of balance. quote:
trip said: Using this map of consciousness, it may now be possible to understand the root of the problem (on an individual level) and deal with it using a set of techniques designed to excel the individual exactly where they are lacking. If these studies prove correct, it could very well be the beginning of the end to the problem you speak of.
trip, do you or does Ken Wilber have anything developed in this regard?
|
Edited by - Sparkle on Aug 10 2006 04:43:54 AM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Aug 10 2006 : 5:21:01 PM
|
Sorry to be butting in on this great conversation, but now that I've started I may as well go on a little.
On the contrary, thanks for adding to the conversation.
The difference between narcissiam and superior is often a bit blurred to me.
They are blurred, both in language and in the nature of the phenomenon.
I was told once that a person with a stong superiority complex could be helped with therapy whereas a person with stong narcissism could not.
When narcissism is strong enough, sometimes it's called pathological narcissism, and/or the person who has it is called a narcissist. However, the amount of narcissism an ordinary person has, and a pathological narcissist has, are really on a continuum. It's true, alas, that there is no known cure for pathological narcissism.
The way I see it, strong narcissism produces the finding that one is superior, regardless of the evidence. The same is true however of ordinary people, but to a lesser extent -- people's view of events tend to be distorted in their favor. This is well-known from psychological tests.
If you agree with this interpretation of narcissism would you still apply it to a person who has spent their whole life devoted to spiritual development?
I definitely think that people who spend all of their lives in spiritual development, and who make significant progress, may still be significantly and problematically narcissistic in various ways. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some major spiritual teachers of the 20th century had significant narcissistic issues. Even some of the ones who are highly-regarded, though I won't name names right now.
The narcissism can become quite problemmatic for their teachings, because, when they self-overestimate, they overstretch themselves and make pronouncements where they are incompetent to do so. In this way they can create havoc.
Let's put it like this: if a narcissist is emotionally purified by enlightenment, but not cognitively, they may move from hostile, competitive superiority, to warm, all-loving "enlightened" enormous self-overestimation -- loving, sacro-pietic inflatedness. Such people perhaps move from feeling themselves to being our rightful lords and masters ("impure") to feeling as if they are loving parents, our dads and mums (apparently "pure"). They aren't our dads and mums -- they aren't competent to be; their vision is not that good. It isn't as pure as it seems.
I haven't had a chance to look into Wilber's stuff yet. When I do I'll respond more.
Cheers,
-D |
|
|
|
trip1
USA
739 Posts |
Posted - Aug 11 2006 : 10:10:07 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sparkle
trip, do you or does Ken Wilber have anything developed in this regard?
Hi Louis,
Yes, this is the basis of Ken Wilber's AQAL (All quadrants, all levels, all lines, etc) framework, which is a main focus of the spiritual training offered by the Integral Institute.
I believe that this framework can be used alongside any spiritual path in order to maintain balance in the practitioner, leading to many less instances of the problems which David has described.
Namaste,
Brett |
|
|
|
Sparkle
Ireland
1457 Posts |
Posted - Aug 14 2006 : 04:03:26 AM
|
Thanks David and trip,
Taking both of your posts together, the important thing for me would be how to recognise narcissism in myself, if this is possible.
Perhaps this is possible through the study of Wilber's AQAL theory. I had a quick look at it and remembered that I bought that book years ago and gave it away. It did'nt attract me too much but then I did'nt put too much into it, maybe I'm just lazy
Maybe I'll give it another go sometime.
Louis |
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Aug 21 2006 : 5:38:29 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~~
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
I don't think the sanskrit terms are much of an issue -- sometimes they are more specific than their english counterparts. But Yogani for one is often using English terms for things that are often expressed in Sanskrit, like 'spinal breathing'.
Of course, if sanskrit terms are used, they should be explained.
Agree with david,
Sanskrita ( means polished) is a very profound approach to learning, writing and listening. English gives the best approximation to these words but misses the richness. The rishi's that use them to be able to communicate on multiple levels of consciousness at one time -a good example is the Bhagavad gita - multiple levels of knowledge.
This language ( sanskrit) is based upon sound and form. Again I am biased here as you folks probably know, for the study and pursuit of this insightful and divine language is my passion. When you use a word ( really when I do) I take the word apart or give its defintion for the enjoyment of sharing how robust this lanagage is.
This is why you see so many works e.g. Brahma sutra's, Jaimini sutras, Patanjali sutras found in sanatana dharma ( or the eternal + that what upholds) spirital works of the east, vedanta and some that call this religion Hinduism, as sutras or stitches. There is enough 'knowledge' in a few words that translates into volumes.
any hoo... just thought to throw my 2 cent in. I will pick a few words and take 'em apart and start a new thread at later date to give a few examples of the mindful choices the pundits, kavi ( Vedic Poets) and rshi ( rishi in english or seer's) have used. |
Edited by - Frank-in-SanDiego on Aug 21 2006 5:49:22 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Controlling and limiting spiritual teachings
