RE: Going beyond the scriptures?

[Guest guest]

[ Nora ] During one of my chat session a young man said this "all

these scriptures restrict your mind. If you depend on the scriptures

too much, you becomes stuck. Have you seen people who just cannot go

beyond the scriptures. They hold on to the word of the scriptures

that they can't think beyond it". So what you think of this

statement?

 

[Mouse] In order to restrict something, one must first grow that thing up.

Sufi wisdom says "Master the rules and forget them". For some reason many

beginners (level-wise, not time-wise) live by the second part of the

statement, totally ignoring the first one.

 

Regarding your example: it is impossible to listen to everybody's

impressions, and perilous to try everything that everybody says - so one has

to utilize discriminating mind to choose what source is trustworthy enough

to follow.

 

*All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on Revelations. Sure.

But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to Scriptures. Not

everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad or Krishna

(yet :-)).

 

 

 

[ Member ]

 

"It is true! see, I think all of Hinduism, including Shakta,

including Tantra is based on Sruti - revelation. Those who have

been there describe what they have seen and what they understood of

it.

 

Now -- let us say : I decide to visit you in Malaysia. I am well-

prepared I read all about the culture, people, politics, music, art

etc. I study the language and finally I arrive and I have you, a

knowledgeable guide to show and explain what I see.

 

Perhaps i even stay on for 6 months, a year or maybe ten years then I

return home and write down my impressions, I write a very good book

about Malaysia. Everything I have learned in all my study and

experience condensed into a well-written book.

 

Another person would say, "No, that is not right. It is not in the

authoritative book."

 

But of course, no matter how much I know, I am only a visitor to

Malaysia. No matter how perfect my observations and comments, I am

still limited to a certain number of pages a finite amount of time

and research, because I am human, I am finite. Maybe my book is all

good information. Maybe every word is true and accurate but it is

still only a book , and Malaysia is Malaysia.

 

So apply that to scripture. But of course, no matter how much a rishi

knows, s/he is only a visitor to the higher planes of consciousness

no matter how perfect her/his observations and comments, the rishi is

still limited to a certain number of pages, because the rishi is

human -- her/his experience might be infinite, but the ability to

express that infinity is limited by the rishi's language, culture,

time on earth -- because the rish too is finite, even if the soul is

not maybe the scripture is all good information maybe every word is

true and accurate but it is still only a book And Devi is Devi. That

would be my feeling, I think.

 

 

 

 

 

<http://rd./SIG=12914kb9e/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085214034/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companio

n.> click here

 

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=

:HM/A=2128215/rand=543067866>

 

_____

 

 

*

/

 

 

*

<?subject=Un>

 

 

* Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In my opinion (so that I'm not called upon to give a scriptural

reference for this no revelations of any jills makes it to

scripture, either, but that is no indicator of whether those having

such revelations are not enlightened or becoming so. The

people writing the scriptures, and choosing what to include in

scriptural books, and those claiming those books contain the

necessary rules to follow to reach enlightenment, may

themselves not have been, and not be, at the level of Krishna,

Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

 

, Mouse <uri@o...>

wrote:

> *All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on

Revelations. Sure.

> But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to

Scriptures. Not

> everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad

or Krishna

> (yet :-)).

 

 

 

> [ Member ]

>

> "It is true! see, I think all of Hinduism, including Shakta,

> including Tantra is based on Sruti - revelation. Those who have

> been there describe what they have seen and what they

understood of

> it.

>

> Now -- let us say : I decide to visit you in Malaysia. I am well-

> prepared I read all about the culture, people, politics, music, art

> etc. I study the language and finally I arrive and I have you, a

> knowledgeable guide to show and explain what I see.

>

> Perhaps i even stay on for 6 months, a year or maybe ten years

then I

> return home and write down my impressions, I write a very

good book

> about Malaysia. Everything I have learned in all my study and

> experience condensed into a well-written book.

>

> Another person would say, "No, that is not right. It is not in the

> authoritative book."

>

> But of course, no matter how much I know, I am only a visitor to

> Malaysia. No matter how perfect my observations and

comments, I am

> still limited to a certain number of pages a finite amount of time

> and research, because I am human, I am finite. Maybe my

book is all

> good information. Maybe every word is true and accurate but it

is

> still only a book , and Malaysia is Malaysia.

>

> So apply that to scripture. But of course, no matter how much a

rishi

> knows, s/he is only a visitor to the higher planes of

consciousness

> no matter how perfect her/his observations and comments, the

rishi is

> still limited to a certain number of pages, because the rishi is

> human -- her/his experience might be infinite, but the ability to

> express that infinity is limited by the rishi's language, culture,

> time on earth -- because the rish too is finite, even if the soul is

> not maybe the scripture is all good information maybe every

word is

> true and accurate but it is still only a book And Devi is Devi.

That

> would be my feeling, I think.

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=12914kb9e/M=295196.4901138.60713

05.3001176/D=groups

>

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085214034/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10

se96mf6/*http://companio

> n.> click here

>

>

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3

001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2128215/rand=543067866>

>

> _____

>

> Links

>

>

> *

> /

>

>

> *

>

>

<?subj

ect=Un>

>

>

> * Terms of

Service

> <> .

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In my opinion (so that I'm not called upon to give a scriptural

reference for this no revelations of any jills makes it to

scripture, either, but that is no indicator of whether those having

such revelations are not enlightened or becoming so.

 

 

[Mouse] True. Which is why both are looked at - the messenger and the

message. Until a person is at such a level that can descern the message

regardless of its "carrier".

 

The

people writing the scriptures, and choosing what to include in

scriptural books, and those claiming those books contain the

necessary rules to follow to reach enlightenment, may

themselves not have been, and not be, at the level of Krishna,

Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

 

[Mouse] Indeed, often they are not (though at least they had the benefit of

associating with the great ones, and something hoipefully did rub off - or

why did the Masters keep them as students). A point - message from [e.g.]

Krishna is transmitted through many channels and messengers - so the

individual biases of those tend to cancel each other out. And at least we

can assume that Krishna was enlightened.

 

So overall, I do my own discernment (rather than blindly relying on the

rules) - but spend more efferts and time trying to penertrate the Scriptural

messages, than those of "unknown origin".

 

Sounds reasonable enough? :-)

 

, Mouse <uri@o...>

wrote:

> *All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on

Revelations. Sure.

> But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to

Scriptures. Not

> everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad

or Krishna

> (yet :-)).

 

 

 

> [ Member ]

>

> "It is true! see, I think all of Hinduism, including Shakta,

> including Tantra is based on Sruti - revelation. Those who have

> been there describe what they have seen and what they

understood of

> it.

>

> Now -- let us say : I decide to visit you in Malaysia. I am well-

> prepared I read all about the culture, people, politics, music, art

> etc. I study the language and finally I arrive and I have you, a

> knowledgeable guide to show and explain what I see.

>

> Perhaps i even stay on for 6 months, a year or maybe ten years

then I

> return home and write down my impressions, I write a very

good book

> about Malaysia. Everything I have learned in all my study and

> experience condensed into a well-written book.

>

> Another person would say, "No, that is not right. It is not in the

> authoritative book."

>

> But of course, no matter how much I know, I am only a visitor to

> Malaysia. No matter how perfect my observations and

comments, I am

> still limited to a certain number of pages a finite amount of time

> and research, because I am human, I am finite. Maybe my

book is all

> good information. Maybe every word is true and accurate but it

is

> still only a book , and Malaysia is Malaysia.

>

> So apply that to scripture. But of course, no matter how much a

rishi

> knows, s/he is only a visitor to the higher planes of

consciousness

> no matter how perfect her/his observations and comments, the

rishi is

> still limited to a certain number of pages, because the rishi is

> human -- her/his experience might be infinite, but the ability to

> express that infinity is limited by the rishi's language, culture,

> time on earth -- because the rish too is finite, even if the soul is

> not maybe the scripture is all good information maybe every

word is

> true and accurate but it is still only a book And Devi is Devi.

That

> would be my feeling, I think.

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=12914kb9e/M=295196.4901138.60713

05.3001176/D=groups

>

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085214034/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10

se96mf6/*http://companio

> n.> click here

>

>

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3

001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2128215/rand=543067866>

>

> _____

>

> Links

>

>

> *

> /

>

>

> *

>

>

<?subj

ect=Un>

>

>

> * Terms of

Service

> <> .

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

<http://rd./SIG=129dd4iao/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085238426/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companio

n.> click here

 

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=

:HM/A=2128215/rand=406761837>

 

_____

 

 

*

/

 

 

*

<?subject=Un>

 

 

* Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think I'd go with Nora on this one. If you've got a guru, the guru's

interpretation governs. If you do not, scripture governs. Where

scripture is open to interpretation which is -- I guess, usually --

the sadhak should pray for guidance in properly intuiting its

application to one's own particular circumstances. In

self-interpretation there is, of course, a higher chance of error --

i.e. one's personal samskara unduly coloring interpretation -- but

until Devi sends you your guru, Her inner guidance is the best

resource you've got.

 

DB

[Guest guest]

Emaho! For the record, none of these famous figures Jesus, Krishna, Moses,

except for Mohammed left any scriptures. When talking about scriptures there

will be a reference to support any conceivable viewpoint, so scriptures really

cannot be a final source of standards for practice. What should be the final

source for a practice standard is the chosen scripture of one's lineage with

which one has made a connection. Be it Avaduthi or Nath, or Shakta or Chod.

Samkya, Kapila, or Jain, Sikh, Smarta, or Sri Vidyaka, Christian, Protestant,

Jew, or Scientist. BTW, the Chod practice of Buddhism is written by a 'Jill,'

one Machig Lapdron. Maybe look into it.

 

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the scriptures, smriti?, were there to hold

a mirror to one's state of mind. One could find anyone reflected therein. And

so ideally one should make reference to themselves specifically and their own

aspirations on The Path of Dharma, and life to their own highest ideals,

because, as he said, trying to live by the collection of do's and don'ts in the

smriti could drive one insane. One should aspire to live by the highest

standard of their own religion and not live confused or straining to be someone

that they are not. Whatever hard edges of one's character will be worn away by

partaking of the amrita of the divine, just as water wears away stone.

-

Mary Ann

Friday, May 21, 2004 10:06 AM

Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

In my opinion (so that I'm not called upon to give a scriptural

reference for this no revelations of any jills makes it to

scripture, either, but that is no indicator of whether those having

such revelations are not enlightened or becoming so. The

people writing the scriptures, and choosing what to include in

scriptural books, and those claiming those books contain the

necessary rules to follow to reach enlightenment, may

themselves not have been, and not be, at the level of Krishna,

Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

 

, Mouse <uri@o...>

wrote:

> *All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on

Revelations. Sure.

> But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to

Scriptures. Not

> everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad

or Krishna

> (yet :-)).

 

 

 

> [ Member ]

>

> "It is true! see, I think all of Hinduism, including Shakta,

> including Tantra is based on Sruti - revelation. Those who have

> been there describe what they have seen and what they

understood of

> it.

>

> Now -- let us say : I decide to visit you in Malaysia. I am well-

> prepared I read all about the culture, people, politics, music, art

> etc. I study the language and finally I arrive and I have you, a

> knowledgeable guide to show and explain what I see.

>

> Perhaps i even stay on for 6 months, a year or maybe ten years

then I

> return home and write down my impressions, I write a very

good book

> about Malaysia. Everything I have learned in all my study and

> experience condensed into a well-written book.

>

> Another person would say, "No, that is not right. It is not in the

> authoritative book."

>

> But of course, no matter how much I know, I am only a visitor to

> Malaysia. No matter how perfect my observations and

comments, I am

> still limited to a certain number of pages a finite amount of time

> and research, because I am human, I am finite. Maybe my

book is all

> good information. Maybe every word is true and accurate but it

is

> still only a book , and Malaysia is Malaysia.

>

> So apply that to scripture. But of course, no matter how much a

rishi

> knows, s/he is only a visitor to the higher planes of

consciousness

> no matter how perfect her/his observations and comments, the

rishi is

> still limited to a certain number of pages, because the rishi is

> human -- her/his experience might be infinite, but the ability to

> express that infinity is limited by the rishi's language, culture,

> time on earth -- because the rish too is finite, even if the soul is

> not maybe the scripture is all good information maybe every

word is

> true and accurate but it is still only a book And Devi is Devi.

That

> would be my feeling, I think.

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=12914kb9e/M=295196.4901138.60713

05.3001176/D=groups

>

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085214034/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10

se96mf6/*http://companio

> n.> click here

>

>

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3

001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2128215/rand=543067866>

>

> _____

>

> Links

>

>

> *

> /

>

>

> *

>

>

<?subj

ect=Un>

>

>

> * Terms of

Service

> <> .

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Mouse: Yes, it does sound reasonable enough

 

, Mouse <uri@o...> wrote:

> In my opinion (so that I'm not called upon to give a scriptural

> reference for this no revelations of any jills makes it to

> scripture, either, but that is no indicator of whether those having

> such revelations are not enlightened or becoming so.

>

>

> [Mouse] True. Which is why both are looked at - the messenger and

the

> message. Until a person is at such a level that can descern the

message

> regardless of its "carrier".

>

> The

> people writing the scriptures, and choosing what to include in

> scriptural books, and those claiming those books contain the

> necessary rules to follow to reach enlightenment, may

> themselves not have been, and not be, at the level of Krishna,

> Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

>

> [Mouse] Indeed, often they are not (though at least they had the

benefit of

> associating with the great ones, and something hoipefully did rub

off - or

> why did the Masters keep them as students). A point - message from

[e.g.]

> Krishna is transmitted through many channels and messengers - so the

> individual biases of those tend to cancel each other out. And at

least we

> can assume that Krishna was enlightened.

>

> So overall, I do my own discernment (rather than blindly relying on

the

> rules) - but spend more efferts and time trying to penertrate the

Scriptural

> messages, than those of "unknown origin".

>

> Sounds reasonable enough? :-)

>

> , Mouse <uri@o...>

> wrote:

> > *All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on

> Revelations. Sure.

> > But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to

> Scriptures. Not

> > everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad

> or Krishna

> > (yet :-)).

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi: Thanks for the heads-up on the Jill scripture I have read that

Tantric Buddhism had many women teachers but I have not seen

scriptures written by women. I will look into it.

 

 

, "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

<detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> Emaho! For the record, none of these famous figures Jesus, Krishna,

Moses, except for Mohammed left any scriptures. When talking about

scriptures there will be a reference to support any conceivable

viewpoint, so scriptures really cannot be a final source of standards

for practice. What should be the final source for a practice

standard is the chosen scripture of one's lineage with which one has

made a connection. Be it Avaduthi or Nath, or Shakta or Chod. Samkya,

Kapila, or Jain, Sikh, Smarta, or Sri Vidyaka, Christian, Protestant,

Jew, or Scientist. BTW, the Chod practice of Buddhism is written by

a 'Jill,' one Machig Lapdron. Maybe look into it.

>

> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the scriptures, smriti?, were

there to hold a mirror to one's state of mind. One could find anyone

reflected therein. And so ideally one should make reference to

themselves specifically and their own aspirations on The Path of

Dharma, and life to their own highest ideals, because, as he said,

trying to live by the collection of do's and don'ts in the smriti

could drive one insane. One should aspire to live by the highest

standard of their own religion and not live confused or straining to

be someone that they are not. Whatever hard edges of one's character

will be worn away by partaking of the amrita of the divine, just as

water wears away stone.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, May 21, 2004 10:06 AM

> Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

>

>

> In my opinion (so that I'm not called upon to give a scriptural

> reference for this no revelations of any jills makes it to

> scripture, either, but that is no indicator of whether those

having

> such revelations are not enlightened or becoming so. The

> people writing the scriptures, and choosing what to include in

> scriptural books, and those claiming those books contain the

> necessary rules to follow to reach enlightenment, may

> themselves not have been, and not be, at the level of Krishna,

> Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

>

> , Mouse <uri@o...>

> wrote:

> > *All* the Scriptures of *all* the religions are based on

> Revelations. Sure.

> > But - sorry - not every revelation of every jack makes it to

> Scriptures. Not

> > everybody is [at the level of] Moses, Jesus Christ, Muhammad

> or Krishna

> > (yet :-)).

>

>

>

>

> > [ Member ]

> >

> > "It is true! see, I think all of Hinduism, including Shakta,

> > including Tantra is based on Sruti - revelation. Those who have

> > been there describe what they have seen and what they

> understood of

> > it.

> >

> > Now -- let us say : I decide to visit you in Malaysia. I am

well-

> > prepared I read all about the culture, people, politics, music,

art

> > etc. I study the language and finally I arrive and I have you,

a

> > knowledgeable guide to show and explain what I see.

> >

> > Perhaps i even stay on for 6 months, a year or maybe ten years

> then I

> > return home and write down my impressions, I write a very

> good book

> > about Malaysia. Everything I have learned in all my study and

> > experience condensed into a well-written book.

> >

> > Another person would say, "No, that is not right. It is not in

the

> > authoritative book."

> >

> > But of course, no matter how much I know, I am only a visitor

to

> > Malaysia. No matter how perfect my observations and

> comments, I am

> > still limited to a certain number of pages a finite amount of

time

> > and research, because I am human, I am finite. Maybe my

> book is all

> > good information. Maybe every word is true and accurate but it

> is

> > still only a book , and Malaysia is Malaysia.

> >

> > So apply that to scripture. But of course, no matter how much a

> rishi

> > knows, s/he is only a visitor to the higher planes of

> consciousness

> > no matter how perfect her/his observations and comments, the

> rishi is

> > still limited to a certain number of pages, because the rishi

is

> > human -- her/his experience might be infinite, but the ability

to

> > express that infinity is limited by the rishi's language,

culture,

> > time on earth -- because the rish too is finite, even if the

soul is

> > not maybe the scripture is all good information maybe every

> word is

> > true and accurate but it is still only a book And Devi is Devi.

> That

> > would be my feeling, I think.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> <http://rd./SIG=12914kb9e/M=295196.4901138.60713

> 05.3001176/D=groups

> >

> /S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085214034/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10

> se96mf6/*http://companio

> > n.> click here

> >

> >

> <http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3

> 001176/D=groups/S=

> > :HM/A=2128215/rand=543067866>

> >

> > _____

> >

> > Links

> >

> >

> > *

> > /

> >

> >

> > *

> >

> >

> <?subj

> ect=Un>

> >

> >

> > * Terms

of

> Service

> > <> .

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

<detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> Emaho! For the record, none of these famous figures Jesus,

>Krishna, Moses, except for Mohammed left any scriptures.

 

Bhagavadgita is by Sri Krishna.

 

> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the scriptures, smriti?, were

>there to hold a mirror to one's state of mind. One could find

>anyone reflected therein. And so ideally one should make reference

>to themselves specifically and their own aspirations on The Path of

>Dharma, and life to their own highest ideals, because, as he said,

>trying to live by the collection of do's and don'ts in the smriti

>could drive one insane.

 

Mahesh Yogi is a fraud. Some accuse him of poisoning his own

teacher. I dont know how true this is. We saw b4 how he makes up

bijaksharas and cheats people.

 

Regarding do and donts driving insane: I dont think so. We have many

do and donts in society itself. People dont bcome insane by

confirming to them.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

Regarding do and donts driving insane: I dont think so. We have many

do and donts in society itself. People dont bcome insane by

confirming to them.

 

 

 

-------This can be debated.

 

 

[Guest guest]

<detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> Emaho! For the record, none of these famous figures Jesus,

>Krishna, Moses, except for Mohammed left any scriptures.

 

Bhagavadgita is by Sri Krishna.

 

[Mouse] And The Bible (the first five books of it) is by Moses.

For the record! :-)

 

[Mouse] Regarding the purpose of Shrutti (What Moses obtained was Smriti,

what we get from his writings is Shrutti) - IMHO it's to guide us on the

Way.

And to help us understanding often terse and cryptic Smriti, there are

Tantras.

> Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once said that the scriptures, smriti?, were

>there to hold a mirror to one's state of mind.

 

[Mouse] One of the functions, perhaps. The only/main function - I disagree.

> as he said,

>trying to live by the collection of do's and don'ts in the smriti

>could drive one insane.

 

Mahesh Yogi is a fraud. Some accuse him of poisoning his own

teacher. I dont know how true this is. We saw b4 how he makes up

bijaksharas and cheats people.

 

[Mouse] Some of his sayings do sound insane. I'd definitely consider what he

was saying, but for sure take it with a (large) grain of salt.

 

Regarding do and donts driving insane: I dont think so. We have many

do and donts in society itself. People dont bcome insane by

confirming to them.

 

[Mouse] Dharma essentially is "do this and don't do that". It's supposed to

keep a person sane.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> ,

> "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > Emaho! For the record, none of these famous

> figures Jesus,

> >Krishna, Moses, except for Mohammed left any

> scriptures.

>

> Bhagavadgita is by Sri Krishna.

 

Beloved Satish,

 

Perhaps you have not read the Bhagavad Gita?

If you had, you would see that at the very beginning

the scripture makes it clear that the BhagavadGita is

being narrated by Sanjaya.

 

If you are unfamiliar with that section, maybe you can

find a good online version of the text to look it up.

Its in Chapter 1, verse 1, in case you don't know.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

If you insist on hair-splitting - then yes, the Gita the "transmission" by

Sanjaya to King Dhritarashtra. However if you're failiar with what's going

on past Chapter 1 verse 1, you know that it's (a) Sanjaya acts as a "direct

recording and transmitting device", and (b) the rest of the book comprises

of discussion between Krishna and Arjuna. Krishna educating Arjuna. So it's

quite reasonable to say that the Gita is by Shri Krishna - its esense is his

direct words to Arjuna.

 

Uri-David

 

 

 

Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Friday, May 28, 2004 14:22

Re: Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

 

--- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> ,

> "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > Emaho! For the record, none of these famous

> figures Jesus,

> >Krishna, Moses, except for Mohammed left any

> scriptures.

>

> Bhagavadgita is by Sri Krishna.

 

Beloved Satish,

 

Perhaps you have not read the Bhagavad Gita?

If you had, you would see that at the very beginning

the scripture makes it clear that the BhagavadGita is

being narrated by Sanjaya.

 

If you are unfamiliar with that section, maybe you can

find a good online version of the text to look it up.

Its in Chapter 1, verse 1, in case you don't know.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

 

 

 

 

<http://rd./SIG=129n3ks4o/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085869504/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companio

n.> click here

 

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=

:HM/A=2128215/rand=715778918>

 

 

_____

 

 

*

/

 

 

*

<?subject=Un>

 

 

* Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Beloved,

 

Except that by that reasoning, the New Testament was

"authored" by Jesus, and the disciples were only

acting as "recording devices". This is the viewpoint

of religious believers, but it is not the simple

truth.

 

The fact is that the original poster is correct, holy

books are mostly written by followers, not by the

Masters themselves (with a few obvious exceptions, ie.

the Koran .. though even in that case, a

fundamentalist Muslim would say that Mohammed was only

a "recording" device for God via an angel that spoke

to him).

 

Nisarg

 

--- Mouse <uri wrote:

> If you insist on hair-splitting - then yes, the Gita

> the "transmission" by

> Sanjaya to King Dhritarashtra. However if you're

> failiar with what's going

> on past Chapter 1 verse 1, you know that it's (a)

> Sanjaya acts as a "direct

> recording and transmitting device", and (b) the rest

> of the book comprises

> of discussion between Krishna and Arjuna. Krishna

> educating Arjuna. So it's

> quite reasonable to say that the Gita is by Shri

> Krishna - its esense is his

> direct words to Arjuna.

>

> Uri-David

>

>

>

> Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Friday, May 28, 2004 14:22

>

> Re: Re: Going beyond the

> scriptures?

>

>

>

> --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> > ,

> > "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

> > <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > > Emaho! For the record, none of these famous

> > figures Jesus,

> > >Krishna, Moses, except for Mohammed left any

> > scriptures.

> >

> > Bhagavadgita is by Sri Krishna.

>

> Beloved Satish,

>

> Perhaps you have not read the Bhagavad Gita?

> If you had, you would see that at the very beginning

> the scripture makes it clear that the BhagavadGita

> is

> being narrated by Sanjaya.

>

> If you are unfamiliar with that section, maybe you

> can

> find a good online version of the text to look it

> up.

> Its in Chapter 1, verse 1, in case you don't know.

>

> Love

> Nisarg

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

<http://rd./SIG=129n3ks4o/M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups

>

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1085869504/A=2128215/R=0/SIG=10se96mf6/*http://companio

> n.> click here

>

>

<http://us.adserver./l?M=295196.4901138.6071305.3001176/D=groups/S=

> :HM/A=2128215/rand=715778918>

>

>

> _____

>

> Links

>

>

> *

> /

>

>

> *

>

>

<?subject=Un>

>

>

>

> *

> Terms of Service

> <> .

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved,

>

> Except that by that reasoning, the New Testament was

> "authored" by Jesus, and the disciples were only

> acting as "recording devices". This is the viewpoint

> of religious believers, but it is not the simple

> truth.

 

Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

 

Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

 

Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya

agree that the words are those of Krishna Himself even though they

disagree on how they should be understood. Since it is believed that

it is the word of Krishna from the last n X 1000 yrs, can you give

us some reasons as to why we have to beleive otherwise?

 

Why should we stop beleiving all of them and start beleiving in

somebody's words?

 

Thanks

Satish.

[Guest guest]

Beloved Satish,

 

--- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

>

> Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

>

> Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya and

> Ramanujacharya

> agree that the words are those of Krishna Himself

> even though they

> disagree on how they should be understood. Since it

> is believed that

> it is the word of Krishna from the last n X 1000

> yrs, can you give

> us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> otherwise?

 

Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya

weren't there.

For another, how do you know that's what they really

said? How do you know their words weren't

misinterpreted?

 

I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

"written by Krishna".

Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

I wasn't there, they weren't there.

The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE that

what you have been told about them is true.

It is all you.

Just your own head.

 

That is not something to find truth with. It is, on

the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you were

right.

 

The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you turned

around right now and said that you would believe what

I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would still

be trapped by blindness and lies.

Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not because

I said it.

Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are true,

not because of the mythology of who those teachers

were. As soon as you make the person more important

than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy tales

and lies.

 

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest scriptures in

the entire world.

But not because it was written by Krishna or took

place the way it is literally described.

It is important because of what it SAYS.

Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

Krishna? Yes.

But to care more about the literalness of the story

than the importance of what it teaches is to take

something useful and make it useless.

If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have any

religion worth keeping, Satish.

 

On the other hand, if your religion is one that

encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

that truth means you must reject the idiotic

superstitions and traditions accumulated by thousands

of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices, and

repression, then it is something very brave and worth

practicing.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

> Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

>

> Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

>

> Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya and

> Ramanujacharya

> agree that the words are those of Krishna Himself

> even though they

> disagree on how they should be understood. Since it

> is believed that

> it is the word of Krishna from the last n X 1000

> yrs, can you give

> us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> otherwise?

 

Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya

weren't there.

[Mouse] In many cases (Torah and the Prophets in Judaism, Qu'ran in

Islam,others) the people who recorded the texts either were there, or were

the authors themselves.

 

For another, how do you know that's what they really

said? How do you know their words weren't

misinterpreted?

 

[Mouse] Ultimately - by experience only. In the meanwhile, we hve to rely on

our common sense and on the test of time and numbers. If something worked

for many people for thousands of years - there's a decent chance it may work

for you too. On the other hand, if a cook pops up with outrageous claims,

thre's a chance that he'd lead you to Enlightenment, but let's say it's not

very promising.

 

I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

"written by Krishna".

Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

 

[Mouse] Because your words don't withstand four tests:

 

1. Not verified by impression. When Jesus spoke, the listeners

immediately "felt" that he was making sense (and mostly this impression

carries even through the recordings of his speeches). Yes I'm implying that

this may not be the case here.

2. Not veryfied by numbers. For all I know, you're a lonely voice on

the Net, listened by few - and even those mostly arguing with you. So far

people who I know don't seem to call you "Mahatma".

3. Not verified by time. If after, say two thousand years your words

still carry - perhaps you indeed deserve the title. Until then - ...

4. Finally, not verified by common sense. E.g. when we see cars in

front of us slowing down, and a driver going in the opposite direction tells

us ":there's an accident ahead of you, and a road jam" - it makes sense to

trust his words and seek a detour, even though he may not be a "Mahatma".

 

 

 

I wasn't there, they weren't there.

The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE that

what you have been told about them is true.

It is all you. Just your own head.

 

[Mouse] Yes, and it's your head that tells you "the food is ready now, get

it off the fire lest it overcooks". And it tells you "wait on the sidewalk -

that car is moving too fast for you to safely cross the street". A wonderful

tool!

 

That is not something to find truth with. It is, on

the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you were

right.

 

[Mouse] Alas, your alternative is no better. Except that in this case, the

chance t find truth is smaller.

 

The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you turned

around right now and said that you would believe what

I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would still

be trapped by blindness and lies.

Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not because

I said it.

 

[Mouse] First - you say that what you're saying is truth. I for one don't

think so. Second, accepting your words would be as blind as accepting the

Gita for truth - except that the Gita carries a lot more respect with a lot

more people (so far). And until you learn to see ("heal" your eyesight) you

have to take something on blind faith, preferably after verifying it with

intellect as far as it would go.

 

Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are true,

not because of the mythology of who those teachers

were. As soon as you make the person more important

than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy tales

and lies.

[Mouse] And until you can "see" - how are you to tell the "truth" from its

opposite?

 

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest scriptures in

the entire world.

But not because it was written by Krishna or took

place the way it is literally described.

It is important because of what it SAYS.

Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

Krishna? Yes.

 

[Mouse] By your own logic - how do you know that Krishna even existed? How

do you know that it describes "accurately" what Krishna said (if he

existed)? And how do you know that it says the "truth"? As Pilates asked

"what it truth?"

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya

> weren't there.

> For another, how do you know that's what they really

> said? How do you know their words weren't

> misinterpreted?

 

There should be a reason for any doubt.

What makes you think they werent there?

 

Their existence, presence and influence is recorded by travellers

(especially- Chinese and ppl from other nations)) who were touring

India at that time.

 

If they dont exist, why do you think the Buddhists and Jains who

were rival schools at that time, ackowledged his existence and took

great pains to try to refute what they said?

 

Copies of what they taught and wrote exist till date, although once

in a while there is a little possibility of confusion with

authorship.

 

Do Heisenberg, Neil Bohr, Faraday and Einstein exist? Prolly you can

enlighten us as to their existence too.

> I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

> "written by Krishna".

> Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

> I wasn't there, they weren't there.

 

Is above intended to be a joke?

I had a good laugh on this one.

 

First sentence negates itself, if you know what I mean.

> The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE that

> what you have been told about them is true.

> It is all you.

> Just your own head.

 

Ofcourse it is true that I want to believe them and for a good

reason.

> The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you turned

> around right now and said that you would believe what

> I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would still

> be trapped by blindness and lies.

 

The reason you think they are lies is because you dont believe in

yourself.

> It is important because of what it SAYS.

 

Quite True.

> Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

> Krishna? Yes.

 

Hahaha!

> If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

> academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have any

> religion worth keeping, Satish.

 

Even in secular education, one will first believe what their teacher

says is true. There is no way the student will learn if he starts

thinking that the teacher might be wrong from the very first day he

is put in school. They believe in the words of the teacher first,

work on it and think about it and only when what the teacher says

defies logic or common sense or some scientific principle that you

start to doubt whether what he/she taught is valid or not.

 

Same applies to spiritual education too.

> On the other hand, if your religion is one that

> encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

> that truth means you must reject the idiotic

> superstitions and traditions accumulated by thousands

> of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices, and

> repression, then it is something very brave and worth

> practicing.

 

Like the teachings propagated by some and their students who use

biological weapons to kill innocents and murder people. Right?

 

This is nice comedy.

 

Thanks

[Guest guest]

I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad Gita is a tantra to be

practiced, which include all the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has

anyone understood this truth?

-

Swami Anand Nisarg

Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:01 AM

Re: Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

 

Beloved Satish,

 

--- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

>

> Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

>

> Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya and

> Ramanujacharya

> agree that the words are those of Krishna Himself

> even though they

> disagree on how they should be understood. Since it

> is believed that

> it is the word of Krishna from the last n X 1000

> yrs, can you give

> us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> otherwise?

 

Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya

weren't there.

For another, how do you know that's what they really

said? How do you know their words weren't

misinterpreted?

 

I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

"written by Krishna".

Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

I wasn't there, they weren't there.

The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE that

what you have been told about them is true.

It is all you.

Just your own head.

 

That is not something to find truth with. It is, on

the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you were

right.

 

The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you turned

around right now and said that you would believe what

I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would still

be trapped by blindness and lies.

Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not because

I said it.

Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are true,

not because of the mythology of who those teachers

were. As soon as you make the person more important

than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy tales

and lies.

 

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest scriptures in

the entire world.

But not because it was written by Krishna or took

place the way it is literally described.

It is important because of what it SAYS.

Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

Krishna? Yes.

But to care more about the literalness of the story

than the importance of what it teaches is to take

something useful and make it useless.

If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have any

religion worth keeping, Satish.

 

On the other hand, if your religion is one that

encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

that truth means you must reject the idiotic

superstitions and traditions accumulated by thousands

of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices, and

repression, then it is something very brave and worth

practicing.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Beloved Mongo,

 

Yes.

It is indeed like you said, a complete practice guide.

It has been completely misunderstood by hindu

fundamentalism.

 

Imagine a tribe of primitives, who are taught some

basic english.

They see some Americans who set up a TV system,

reading the instruction manual.. they make a little

tiny box suddenly have light, sounds, images, and

people!

Clearly, to the primitives, these Americans would seem

like gods, even though they're just men.

Now lets say the Americans die, and the TV breaks

down.. but the primitives still have the instruction

manual! Its written in English, which they understand

in a basic way, but its full of technical terms that

make little sense to them, and even less in the

absence of an actual TV.

 

So the primitives become a "cargo cult". THey invent

rituals and practices that imitate what they SAW about

the TV, without really understanding at all what the

TV was or how it really worked.

This is the situation most religions find themselves

with regarding scriptures.

The Christians are like this with some of the texts of

Bible.

The Muslims are like this toward the Koran.

And the Hindus are very much like this toward the

Bhagavad Gita... they misunderstand who Krishna was,

what the practices mean or do, in some cases only

half-understanding (as with meditation), in others

understanding the practice but not the purpose (as

with Bhakti), in some cases taking a system of

criteria and applying it in a totally incorrect way

(as with the gunas), and in some just totally missing

the point (as with the standard hindu use of mantras,

ie. pointless repetition).

 

This is reading the manual without having the TV.

 

Nisarg

 

 

--- Detective_Mongo_Phd

<detective_mongo_phd wrote:

> I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> understood this truth?

> -

> Swami Anand Nisarg

>

> Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:01 AM

> Re: Re: Going beyond the

> scriptures?

>

>

>

> Beloved Satish,

>

> --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela

> wrote:

> > Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

> >

> > Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

> >

> > Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya

> and

> > Ramanujacharya

> > agree that the words are those of Krishna

> Himself

> > even though they

> > disagree on how they should be understood. Since

> it

> > is believed that

> > it is the word of Krishna from the last n X

> 1000

> > yrs, can you give

> > us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> > otherwise?

>

> Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and

> Ramanujacharya

> weren't there.

> For another, how do you know that's what they

> really

> said? How do you know their words weren't

> misinterpreted?

>

> I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

> "written by Krishna".

> Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

> I wasn't there, they weren't there.

> The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE

> that

> what you have been told about them is true.

> It is all you.

> Just your own head.

>

> That is not something to find truth with. It is,

> on

> the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

> That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you

> were

> right.

>

> The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you

> turned

> around right now and said that you would believe

> what

> I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would

> still

> be trapped by blindness and lies.

> Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not

> because

> I said it.

> Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

> Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are

> true,

> not because of the mythology of who those teachers

> were. As soon as you make the person more

> important

> than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy

> tales

> and lies.

>

> The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest

> scriptures in

> the entire world.

> But not because it was written by Krishna or took

> place the way it is literally described.

> It is important because of what it SAYS.

> Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

> Krishna? Yes.

> But to care more about the literalness of the

> story

> than the importance of what it teaches is to take

> something useful and make it useless.

> If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

> academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have

> any

> religion worth keeping, Satish.

>

> On the other hand, if your religion is one that

> encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

> that truth means you must reject the idiotic

> superstitions and traditions accumulated by

> thousands

> of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices,

> and

> repression, then it is something very brave and

> worth

> practicing.

>

> Love

> Nisarg

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b.. To from this group, send an

> email to:

>

>

> c.. Your use of is subject to the

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

The Tantric roots of most major religions is unknown because they

were written symbolically and interpreted literally. If Urine Tantra

is the original "Tantra", and all other interpretations are false,

then it is now unknown, and the ignorant fundamentalists and

atheists, who do not believe in Siddhis (miraculous powers), are

against the True Interpretation, and the rest of us are trapped among

this unfaithful "Goliath Majority". And Goliath "blaspehemed against

the Lord", which gave rise to the Defenders of the Faith, prophesied

in many Holy Scriptures of various religions. For a better

understanding of the ignorance, the lies, and the Truth, go to

http://health.urinetantrasalvation/?

yguid=134954582

 

See you there, and remember that the significance of Shakti or

Kundalini is that it must be in Shushumna Nadi, the Middle River

between Ida (Soma, moon, female, as per the monthly cycle) and

Pingala (Surya, Sun, the male, which "comes" every day). Prana,

although literally meaning breath, in fact means both Bioplasma and

Urine. The Mystery I leave to those with enquiring minds is: The

Inner Child (Genetic Rejuvenation) is the Androgyny between Soma and

Surya, as was our Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Ardhanarishwar.

See the Hatha Yoga Pradipka for more details. The Bible and the Damar

Tantra are good sources for the teachings about the Ageless

Immortality (Dwij, to be "twice-born", or to be "born again of water

and Spirit", which is urine and the Holy Spirit, which is Kundalini

Shakti. For detailed instructions of this experimental Shakti

Sadhana, go to:

http://health.urinetantrasalvation/?

yguid=134954582

 

It is experimental because it was lost through years of secrecy

and rejection... UNTIL NOW! So try it and find out if it works. As a

wise man once said: "Don't knock it until you try it." I invite your

questions. Swami Tantrasangha

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved Mongo,

>

> Yes.

> It is indeed like you said, a complete practice guide.

> It has been completely misunderstood by hindu

> fundamentalism.

>

> Imagine a tribe of primitives, who are taught some

> basic english.

> They see some Americans who set up a TV system,

> reading the instruction manual.. they make a little

> tiny box suddenly have light, sounds, images, and

> people!

> Clearly, to the primitives, these Americans would seem

> like gods, even though they're just men.

> Now lets say the Americans die, and the TV breaks

> down.. but the primitives still have the instruction

> manual! Its written in English, which they understand

> in a basic way, but its full of technical terms that

> make little sense to them, and even less in the

> absence of an actual TV.

>

> So the primitives become a "cargo cult". THey invent

> rituals and practices that imitate what they SAW about

> the TV, without really understanding at all what the

> TV was or how it really worked.

> This is the situation most religions find themselves

> with regarding scriptures.

> The Christians are like this with some of the texts of

> Bible.

> The Muslims are like this toward the Koran.

> And the Hindus are very much like this toward the

> Bhagavad Gita... they misunderstand who Krishna was,

> what the practices mean or do, in some cases only

> half-understanding (as with meditation), in others

> understanding the practice but not the purpose (as

> with Bhakti), in some cases taking a system of

> criteria and applying it in a totally incorrect way

> (as with the gunas), and in some just totally missing

> the point (as with the standard hindu use of mantras,

> ie. pointless repetition).

>

> This is reading the manual without having the TV.

>

> Nisarg

>

>

> --- Detective_Mongo_Phd

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> > Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> > the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> > understood this truth?

> > -

> > Swami Anand Nisarg

> >

> > Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:01 AM

> > Re: Re: Going beyond the

> > scriptures?

> >

> >

> >

> > Beloved Satish,

> >

> > --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela>

> > wrote:

> > > Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

> > >

> > > Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

> > >

> > > Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya

> > and

> > > Ramanujacharya

> > > agree that the words are those of Krishna

> > Himself

> > > even though they

> > > disagree on how they should be understood. Since

> > it

> > > is believed that

> > > it is the word of Krishna from the last n X

> > 1000

> > > yrs, can you give

> > > us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> > > otherwise?

> >

> > Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and

> > Ramanujacharya

> > weren't there.

> > For another, how do you know that's what they

> > really

> > said? How do you know their words weren't

> > misinterpreted?

> >

> > I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

> > "written by Krishna".

> > Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

> > I wasn't there, they weren't there.

> > The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE

> > that

> > what you have been told about them is true.

> > It is all you.

> > Just your own head.

> >

> > That is not something to find truth with. It is,

> > on

> > the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

> > That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you

> > were

> > right.

> >

> > The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you

> > turned

> > around right now and said that you would believe

> > what

> > I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would

> > still

> > be trapped by blindness and lies.

> > Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not

> > because

> > I said it.

> > Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

> > Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are

> > true,

> > not because of the mythology of who those teachers

> > were. As soon as you make the person more

> > important

> > than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy

> > tales

> > and lies.

> >

> > The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest

> > scriptures in

> > the entire world.

> > But not because it was written by Krishna or took

> > place the way it is literally described.

> > It is important because of what it SAYS.

> > Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

> > Krishna? Yes.

> > But to care more about the literalness of the

> > story

> > than the importance of what it teaches is to take

> > something useful and make it useless.

> > If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

> > academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have

> > any

> > religion worth keeping, Satish.

> >

> > On the other hand, if your religion is one that

> > encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

> > that truth means you must reject the idiotic

> > superstitions and traditions accumulated by

> > thousands

> > of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices,

> > and

> > repression, then it is something very brave and

> > worth

> > practicing.

> >

> > Love

> > Nisarg

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> > http://messenger./

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> --

----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b.. To from this group, send an

> > email to:

> >

> >

> > c.. Your use of is subject to the

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

[Guest guest]

, Swami Anand Nisarg > ---

Detective_Mongo_Phd

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> > Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> > the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> > understood this truth?

 

 

Can you please tell me where can I read about this?

 

Am quite curious about it.

[Guest guest]

Same goes for Ramayana. In the chapter where Rama and Lakshamana visit Rama's

Guru he learns all the techniques that he needs.

 

In Bhagavad Gita Krishna is giving many forms for one to practice dhyana on. I

haven't the details any longer but these are hints for those who basically

already would know what to do or how to do it.

-

Swami Anand Nisarg

Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:13 PM

Re: Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

 

Beloved Mongo,

 

Yes.

It is indeed like you said, a complete practice guide.

It has been completely misunderstood by hindu

fundamentalism.

 

Imagine a tribe of primitives, who are taught some

basic english.

They see some Americans who set up a TV system,

reading the instruction manual.. they make a little

tiny box suddenly have light, sounds, images, and

people!

Clearly, to the primitives, these Americans would seem

like gods, even though they're just men.

Now lets say the Americans die, and the TV breaks

down.. but the primitives still have the instruction

manual! Its written in English, which they understand

in a basic way, but its full of technical terms that

make little sense to them, and even less in the

absence of an actual TV.

 

So the primitives become a "cargo cult". THey invent

rituals and practices that imitate what they SAW about

the TV, without really understanding at all what the

TV was or how it really worked.

This is the situation most religions find themselves

with regarding scriptures.

The Christians are like this with some of the texts of

Bible.

The Muslims are like this toward the Koran.

And the Hindus are very much like this toward the

Bhagavad Gita... they misunderstand who Krishna was,

what the practices mean or do, in some cases only

half-understanding (as with meditation), in others

understanding the practice but not the purpose (as

with Bhakti), in some cases taking a system of

criteria and applying it in a totally incorrect way

(as with the gunas), and in some just totally missing

the point (as with the standard hindu use of mantras,

ie. pointless repetition).

 

This is reading the manual without having the TV.

 

Nisarg

 

 

--- Detective_Mongo_Phd

<detective_mongo_phd wrote:

> I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> understood this truth?

> -

> Swami Anand Nisarg

>

> Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:01 AM

> Re: Re: Going beyond the

> scriptures?

>

>

>

> Beloved Satish,

>

> --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela

> wrote:

> > Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

> >

> > Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

> >

> > Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya

> and

> > Ramanujacharya

> > agree that the words are those of Krishna

> Himself

> > even though they

> > disagree on how they should be understood. Since

> it

> > is believed that

> > it is the word of Krishna from the last n X

> 1000

> > yrs, can you give

> > us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> > otherwise?

>

> Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and

> Ramanujacharya

> weren't there.

> For another, how do you know that's what they

> really

> said? How do you know their words weren't

> misinterpreted?

>

> I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

> "written by Krishna".

> Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

> I wasn't there, they weren't there.

> The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE

> that

> what you have been told about them is true.

> It is all you.

> Just your own head.

>

> That is not something to find truth with. It is,

> on

> the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

> That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you

> were

> right.

>

> The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you

> turned

> around right now and said that you would believe

> what

> I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would

> still

> be trapped by blindness and lies.

> Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not

> because

> I said it.

> Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

> Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are

> true,

> not because of the mythology of who those teachers

> were. As soon as you make the person more

> important

> than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy

> tales

> and lies.

>

> The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest

> scriptures in

> the entire world.

> But not because it was written by Krishna or took

> place the way it is literally described.

> It is important because of what it SAYS.

> Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

> Krishna? Yes.

> But to care more about the literalness of the

> story

> than the importance of what it teaches is to take

> something useful and make it useless.

> If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

> academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have

> any

> religion worth keeping, Satish.

>

> On the other hand, if your religion is one that

> encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

> that truth means you must reject the idiotic

> superstitions and traditions accumulated by

> thousands

> of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices,

> and

> repression, then it is something very brave and

> worth

> practicing.

>

> Love

> Nisarg

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b.. To from this group, send an

> email to:

>

>

> c.. Your use of is subject to the

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

http://messenger./

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry but this urine tantra stuff is pathetic, disgusting, degrading, and

perverse, and a waste of attention. I have to block you because I can't stomach

the notion any longer. Trash heap! Later....

-

geneticrejuvenation

Sunday, May 30, 2004 12:13 AM

Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

The Tantric roots of most major religions is unknown because they

were written symbolically and interpreted literally. If Urine Tantra

is the original "Tantra", and all other interpretations are false,

then it is now unknown, and the ignorant fundamentalists and

atheists, who do not believe in Siddhis (miraculous powers), are

against the True Interpretation, and the rest of us are trapped among

this unfaithful "Goliath Majority". And Goliath "blaspehemed against

the Lord", which gave rise to the Defenders of the Faith, prophesied

in many Holy Scriptures of various religions. For a better

understanding of the ignorance, the lies, and the Truth, go to

http://health.urinetantrasalvation/?

yguid=134954582

 

See you there, and remember that the significance of Shakti or

Kundalini is that it must be in Shushumna Nadi, the Middle River

between Ida (Soma, moon, female, as per the monthly cycle) and

Pingala (Surya, Sun, the male, which "comes" every day). Prana,

although literally meaning breath, in fact means both Bioplasma and

Urine. The Mystery I leave to those with enquiring minds is: The

Inner Child (Genetic Rejuvenation) is the Androgyny between Soma and

Surya, as was our Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Ardhanarishwar.

See the Hatha Yoga Pradipka for more details. The Bible and the Damar

Tantra are good sources for the teachings about the Ageless

Immortality (Dwij, to be "twice-born", or to be "born again of water

and Spirit", which is urine and the Holy Spirit, which is Kundalini

Shakti. For detailed instructions of this experimental Shakti

Sadhana, go to:

http://health.urinetantrasalvation/?

yguid=134954582

 

It is experimental because it was lost through years of secrecy

and rejection... UNTIL NOW! So try it and find out if it works. As a

wise man once said: "Don't knock it until you try it." I invite your

questions. Swami Tantrasangha

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved Mongo,

>

> Yes.

> It is indeed like you said, a complete practice guide.

> It has been completely misunderstood by hindu

> fundamentalism.

>

> Imagine a tribe of primitives, who are taught some

> basic english.

> They see some Americans who set up a TV system,

> reading the instruction manual.. they make a little

> tiny box suddenly have light, sounds, images, and

> people!

> Clearly, to the primitives, these Americans would seem

> like gods, even though they're just men.

> Now lets say the Americans die, and the TV breaks

> down.. but the primitives still have the instruction

> manual! Its written in English, which they understand

> in a basic way, but its full of technical terms that

> make little sense to them, and even less in the

> absence of an actual TV.

>

> So the primitives become a "cargo cult". THey invent

> rituals and practices that imitate what they SAW about

> the TV, without really understanding at all what the

> TV was or how it really worked.

> This is the situation most religions find themselves

> with regarding scriptures.

> The Christians are like this with some of the texts of

> Bible.

> The Muslims are like this toward the Koran.

> And the Hindus are very much like this toward the

> Bhagavad Gita... they misunderstand who Krishna was,

> what the practices mean or do, in some cases only

> half-understanding (as with meditation), in others

> understanding the practice but not the purpose (as

> with Bhakti), in some cases taking a system of

> criteria and applying it in a totally incorrect way

> (as with the gunas), and in some just totally missing

> the point (as with the standard hindu use of mantras,

> ie. pointless repetition).

>

> This is reading the manual without having the TV.

>

> Nisarg

>

>

> --- Detective_Mongo_Phd

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> > Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> > the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> > understood this truth?

> > -

> > Swami Anand Nisarg

> >

> > Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:01 AM

> > Re: Re: Going beyond the

> > scriptures?

> >

> >

> >

> > Beloved Satish,

> >

> > --- Satish Arigela <satisharigela>

> > wrote:

> > > Can you explain why is it not the simple truth?

> > >

> > > Veda-Vyasa narrated the MahaBharata.

> > >

> > > Other rishis and mahatmas like Shankaracharya

> > and

> > > Ramanujacharya

> > > agree that the words are those of Krishna

> > Himself

> > > even though they

> > > disagree on how they should be understood. Since

> > it

> > > is believed that

> > > it is the word of Krishna from the last n X

> > 1000

> > > yrs, can you give

> > > us some reasons as to why we have to beleive

> > > otherwise?

> >

> > Well, for one thing, Shankaracharya and

> > Ramanujacharya

> > weren't there.

> > For another, how do you know that's what they

> > really

> > said? How do you know their words weren't

> > misinterpreted?

> >

> > I'm a Mahatma, and I'm telling you that it wasn't

> > "written by Krishna".

> > Why is my word less trustworthy than theirs?

> > I wasn't there, they weren't there.

> > The difference is just that you WANT TO BELIEVE

> > that

> > what you have been told about them is true.

> > It is all you.

> > Just your own head.

> >

> > That is not something to find truth with. It is,

> > on

> > the contrary, a way to blind yourself.

> > That kind of "truth" would be a lie even if you

> > were

> > right.

> >

> > The truth is what I'm saying to you, but if you

> > turned

> > around right now and said that you would believe

> > what

> > I'm saying because I'm so wonderful, you would

> > still

> > be trapped by blindness and lies.

> > Accept what I'm saying because its truth, not

> > because

> > I said it.

> > Just like you must accept Krishna's teachings, or

> > Christ's, or Buddha's, because the teachings are

> > true,

> > not because of the mythology of who those teachers

> > were. As soon as you make the person more

> > important

> > than the truth, you begin to weave foolish fairy

> > tales

> > and lies.

> >

> > The Bhagavad Gita is one of the greatest

> > scriptures in

> > the entire world.

> > But not because it was written by Krishna or took

> > place the way it is literally described.

> > It is important because of what it SAYS.

> > Is it an accurate description of the teachings of

> > Krishna? Yes.

> > But to care more about the literalness of the

> > story

> > than the importance of what it teaches is to take

> > something useful and make it useless.

> > If your religion is so weak it can't stand up to

> > academic or logical scrutiny, then you don't have

> > any

> > religion worth keeping, Satish.

> >

> > On the other hand, if your religion is one that

> > encourages starting from a point of truth, even if

> > that truth means you must reject the idiotic

> > superstitions and traditions accumulated by

> > thousands

> > of years of misunderstandings, dogmas, prejudices,

> > and

> > repression, then it is something very brave and

> > worth

> > practicing.

> >

> > Love

> > Nisarg

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> > http://messenger./

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> --

----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b.. To from this group, send an

> > email to:

> >

> >

> > c.. Your use of is subject to the

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger.

> http://messenger./

 

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Honestly, I study tantra, so I know one when I read it. I haven't read that BG

is a tantra. It's just obvious. I don't think there's a website to give

reference to, but I'm sure there's got to be something at Motilil Banarsidas. I

mean, where else would Vaishnavas get their tantras from? Neither Vishnu, Rama,

Krishna, or any other form of Vishnu is mentioned in the 4 Vedas. Of course

Narasimha has a few Upanishads. So we have to see Vaishnava tantra as coming

from the itihasa. All shanti tantras are the same basically, as awakening is

their goal. If you practice the tantras from Sri Vidya then you can see the

same elements in all other tantras. This person would know - Jagadguru Swami

Sathyananda Saraswathy

 

 

 

-

Satish Arigela

Sunday, May 30, 2004 12:53 AM

Re: Going beyond the scriptures?

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg > ---

Detective_Mongo_Phd

> <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > I have a truth for you guys, the entire Bhagavad

> > Gita is a tantra to be practiced, which include all

> > the necessary mantras and visualizations. Has anyone

> > understood this truth?

 

 

Can you please tell me where can I read about this?

 

Am quite curious about it.

 

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..