Guest guest Posted October 28, 2004 Report Share Posted October 28, 2004 >If his >interpretations are correct, or rather respected, it proves that >the >Vedic gods represent energies in man, and in fact revolves around >the >awakening of kundalini. I haven't seen or read this >interpretation anywhere else, not in works by indologists or well >known academics. Dear Fred, The notion of the Vedic gods representing energies within man is in accord with the notion of the inner and outer worlds being one and the same, which is the experience of countless meditators and a core teaching of saints and yogis from traditions around the world. Even the New Testament contains passages that allude to this. I hope that your exploration into these things also includes some real practice and is not based soley on an academic analysis of the scriptures that you encounter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 INDOLOGY, "Matthew Weiss" <shalin327> wrote: > Dear Fred, > > The notion of the Vedic gods representing energies within man is in > accord with the notion of the inner and outer worlds being one and > the same, which is the experience of countless meditators and a core > teaching of saints and yogis from traditions around the world. Even > the New Testament contains passages that allude to this. > > I hope that your exploration into these things also includes some > real practice and is not based soley on an academic analysis of the > scriptures that you encounter... Thanks for your reply Matthew, Yes I do practice, not hindu-tantra, but buddhist meditation. Anyway, the reason why I post here is because I'm working on a master thesis in Comparative Religion atm, and as you know, there are rules in the academic disciplines. If my work is laden with some sort of religious agenda, or contains personal theories and experiences, it's no longer an academic/ history of religions work. I can't shift perspective when I write. That's why I was wondering if someone in this group could help me find litterature (texts with comments, or secondary litterature) which explain the aformentioned relationship between Vedic gods and human energies. But thanks for your advice. Feel free to mail me if you would like to discuss more practice-related issues. It's always interesting to hear other peoples opinions about practice. Fred M. UiO. [MODERATOR'S COMMENT: NEW (AND OLD) MEMBERS WILL PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS AN "ACADEMIC LIST FOR THE DISCUSSION OF CLASSICAL INDIA."] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 INDOLOGY, "dlite1973" <lime1973@h...> wrote: > the reason why I post here is because I'm working on a master thesis > in Comparative Religion atm, and as you know, there are rules in the > academic disciplines. If my work is laden with some sort of religious > agenda, or contains personal theories and experiences, it's no longer > an academic/ history of religions work. This brings interesting point: on the surface of it it is quite a strange rule. By analogy, linguists should frown on any one who writes comparative analysis of two languages and speaks both of them. Or, medical community ought to be intolerant to research made by doctors who study a decease through deliberately getting sick with it. Since the rule does exist, what makes indology/religious studies so unique? At what point in time did it become a rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 INDOLOGY, "Dmitri" <dmitrinet> wrote: > By analogy, linguists should frown on any one who writes comparative > analysis of two languages and speaks both of them. > Or, medical community ought to be intolerant to research > made by doctors who study a decease through deliberately getting > sick with it. > > Since the rule does exist, what makes indology/religious studies so > unique? > At what point in time did it become a rule? I might have misunderstood the ideal of objectivity in indology/comparative religious studies. What does it mean to be objective anyway? It's just not possible. But from what I've understood, as soon as your work fills up with personal religious theories, you're more of a religious commentator, than an academic who *presents* a religious work, and interprets it's meaning based on knowledge about history, knowledge about comments written by well known religious persons, cultural studies and archeology. I have no idea when this became a rule. I don't like indologists or buddhologists who pretend to understand a religious text more than the religious persons belonging to the faith in question, anymore than I like arrogant religious persons who interpret their own faith's texts without having any knowledge about history, archeology and the culture from which the text came. I don't believe any solid study of a religious text can be done before the indologist gets a personal look into the estoric tradition the text is written in, a deep understanding which can only come through practice and initiation. Also, I don't believe such a solid study can be done unless the religious person who has such a deep intuitive understanding gets a solid academic education including a study of history, history of religions, archeology, and maybe also sociology. It seems to me that there is a gulf between the "learned" and the "believers". They both have something the other part don't have, and they both lack something. And anyone who pretends to play both sides, are immediately branded as a "heretic". (*chuckle*). Anyway, I'm not in a position to bridge this gap in any way, I'm just a masters student. For now I'll play the role of the academic. This is what relates to my education. I can't have "very interested in religious stuff... and such.." on my diploma. Take care Dmitri. Any comments are welcome btw. F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 > the reason why I post here is because I'm working on a master thesis > in Comparative Religion atm, and as you know, there are rules in the > academic disciplines. If my work is laden with some sort of religious > agenda, or contains personal theories and experiences, it's no longer > an academic/ history of religions work. >This brings interesting point: >on the surface of it >it is quite a strange rule. >By analogy, linguists should frown on any one who writes comparative >analysis of two languages and speaks both of them. >Or, medical community ought to be intolerant to research >made by doctors who study a decease through deliberately getting sick >with it. >Since the rule does exist, what makes indology/religious studies so unique? >At what point in time did it become a rule? I of course agree with Dimitri. The subject matter of these esoteric texts have nothing to do with common experience, therefore one has no frame of reference, no way of understanding them if they are taken in a complete vacuum. Here's a personal analogy: I am an accomplished western-trained violinist. I can read various books on fingering techniques, how to draw the bow, various theories on how the instrument should be held, etc. All these fine points carry great meaning for me. The same books read by a non-musician or even by an oboist or trumpet-player would be meaningless and useless. There might be some gee-whiz value in reading these books, but the true intent of the author is completely missed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 INDOLOGY, "Matthew Weiss" <shalin327> wrote: > I of course agree with Dimitri. The subject matter of these > esoteric texts have nothing to do with common experience, therefore > one has no frame of reference, no way of understanding them if they > are taken in a complete vacuum. Texts are never studied in a complete vacuum, but true, it's not possible to base an understanding of esoteric texts on shards of pottery dug up by archeologists. > There might be some gee-whiz value in reading these books, but the > true intent of the author is completely missed... Brahmins agreed on that point almost a thousand years BC. Hidden meanings are lost and understood all the time. Should that deter an indologist from trying to understand the text, based on the knowledge about history, and the knowledge he has about comments on this text? Often, the religious are too narrow and self/group centered when they try to interpret a text, and the indologist is too superficial. The religious base their understanding of the text on personal experiences, but the language used by the author who lived a thousand years ago, might be misunderstood, and only understood properly by someone who studied that culture, that history, an academic. Both groups have their strengths and weaknesses imho. F. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.