Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 I kinda said the same thing to da Dina Dude. Best, JIA In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, das (AT) goravani (DOT) com writes: Dina dude wrote: You are right, paying for teaching or anything else is very much there in western society. So if the saying "what you pay is what you get" is true, than when you charge for teaching of Vedic sciences you get material knowledge, not divine knowledge. So it all depends what you want to get or to give. Best regards, Dinanatha Das. ======== This sounds corny to me personally. It's irrelevent, the words of the maya-casting priests, who want to make themselves seem better than others by implying, not directly saying, that they are somehow way better than others. I would like to say: I was like this until I healed. I suggest healing your deep inner subconscious wounds from childhood, non-acceptance, and so on. It's in MANY of us due to the pains of our parents, our own pasts. It's time to heal. Hare Krishna was a catching place for many who needed absolute saviors because the past was really heavy inside them, insurmountable sub conscious pain, actually. In my case, it was effected by an older female Kineseologist. They work wonders helping people to locate their "inner kinks" from childhood. Believe me, you don't believe what you're saying either. It's old priest-craft, and it's days are over. It's a "dieing kick" kindof thing. People are good. People are NATURALLY good. They don't need this in their faces. So again I say to everyone else, ignore the guilt and lowness being caste upon you here by someone trying to sound like they own Krishna and Guru. It's not true. You can learn, pay to learn, charge for teaching, and it's all good. Nobody can live without giving and receiving. The mechanisms for the amounts and exchange are purely cultural. Ours work, for us. It's fine. It doesn't diminish the spirituality, at all. Not AT ALL. That's in another part of ourselves, and isn't hurt by paying for teaching, not at all. I disagree with this implied dogma. r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 Dina dude wrote: You are right, paying for teaching or anything else is very much there in western society. So if the saying "what you pay is what you get" is true, than when you charge for teaching of Vedic sciences you get material knowledge, not divine knowledge. So it all depends what you want to get or to give. Best regards, Dinanatha Das. ======== This sounds corny to me personally. It's irrelevent, the words of the maya-casting priests, who want to make themselves seem better than others by implying, not directly saying, that they are somehow way better than others. I would like to say: I was like this until I healed. I suggest healing your deep inner subconscious wounds from childhood, non-acceptance, and so on. It's in MANY of us due to the pains of our parents, our own pasts. It's time to heal. Hare Krishna was a catching place for many who needed absolute saviors because the past was really heavy inside them, insurmountable sub conscious pain, actually. In my case, it was effected by an older female Kineseologist. They work wonders helping people to locate their "inner kinks" from childhood. Believe me, you don't believe what you're saying either. It's old priest-craft, and it's days are over. It's a "dieing kick" kindof thing. People are good. People are NATURALLY good. They don't need this in their faces. So again I say to everyone else, ignore the guilt and lowness being caste upon you here by someone trying to sound like they own Krishna and Guru. It's not true. You can learn, pay to learn, charge for teaching, and it's all good. Nobody can live without giving and receiving. The mechanisms for the amounts and exchange are purely cultural. Ours work, for us. It's fine. It doesn't diminish the spirituality, at all. Not AT ALL. That's in another part of ourselves, and isn't hurt by paying for teaching, not at all. I disagree with this implied dogma. r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Share Posted October 2, 2002 You know... I don't agree that the material is somehow separate from the spiritual in that I think they are all manifestations of the consciousness of God. As we evolve, I think that we may learn how to handle each facet of life (i.e. purely spiritual, purely material, purely mental etc.) separately and at some point and maybe at several points or lives....we learn to 'put the pieces together' in order to live a balanced life or at least a potential for balanced living. We have a responsibility to learn how to handle the 'material' aspects of living just as we do the spiritual. Maybe for lifetimes we learned ONLY the spiritual and the pureness of it untainted without the lessons of the material and vice versa. However at some point in this reality many of us are learning to 'translate' our knowledge, our abilities into dollars and sense (cents). This is a hard thing to do without letting greed and lack of ethics take over but somehow somewhere we must do this to *honor* the Divine that gave us these abilities to begin with....to show that we *can* handle this as He/She does everyday since the dawn of time (abundance/restraint/good judgement). This is not only happening amongst 'spiritual' groups but across all types of people in the world today if you look around. Those who have talent let's say to create medicines to help their brother and sister such as the drug companies are also faced with the lessons of the 'material' prosperity in creating those new drugs...how much to charge etc etc.. So spiritual lessons in handling material abundance merely take on a different book cover depending on the group that that lesson is manifesting IN be it environmental companies, the legal profession, the medical profession, retail sales or 'jyotish'...see? It's just another face of the complete diamond in the rough speaking in a language for each individual student to comprehend and learn from no matter how long it takes. So each to his own...yes...each of us has our own lingo and way of wooing the 2nd house goddess of prosperity and it may not be in a language that the next guy comprehends. What is one man's meat is another man's poison depending on where you are at in your evolution not that one is better then another...just 'different'. I have Sun and Moon in Taurus in the 2nd so I see things differently then others do. Venus on the Asc and Jupiter in the 10th. I don't see shame in using one's abilities in making a living for one's self. It's a way of honoring the creator that gave us those abilities or lead us in that direction to learn those talents. What's wrong with that? Why hide your light under a bushel or a bed? It serves no one to do that. And to be ashamed to make a living being an astrologer, for an example, means to ME that one is devaluing the Goddess within you that helped you get there because you are saying that what she represents does not have enough value to put a roof over your head or food on the table for your children/family/you. But that's just MY perspective. Maybe that's why Western and Eastern peoples are brought together...to try to find a middle of the road balance to these concepts and ways of living. Renee gjlist, Jiabbot@c... wrote: > Dear Das: > > I kinda said the same thing to da Dina Dude. > > Best, > > JIA > > > In a message dated 10/2/2002 10:14:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, > das@g... writes: > > Dina dude wrote: > > > > You are right, paying for teaching or anything else is very much > > there in western society. So if the saying "what you pay is what you get" > > is > > true, than when you charge for teaching of Vedic sciences you get material > > knowledge, not divine knowledge. So it all depends what you want to get or > > to give. Best regards, Dinanatha Das. > > > > > > ======== > > > > This sounds corny to me personally. It's irrelevent, the words of the > > maya-casting priests, who want to make themselves seem better than others > > by > > implying, not directly saying, that they are somehow way better than > > others. > > > > I would like to say: I was like this until I healed. I suggest healing > > your > > deep inner subconscious wounds from childhood, non-acceptance, and so on. > > It's in MANY of us due to the pains of our parents, our own pasts. It's > > time > > to heal. Hare Krishna was a catching place for many who needed absolute > > saviors because the past was really heavy inside them, insurmountable sub > > conscious pain, actually. > > > > In my case, it was effected by an older female Kineseologist. They work > > wonders helping people to locate their "inner kinks" from childhood. > > > > Believe me, you don't believe what you're saying either. It's old > > priest-craft, and it's days are over. It's a "dieing kick" kindof thing. > > People are good. People are NATURALLY good. They don't need this in their > > faces. > > > > So again I say to everyone else, ignore the guilt and lowness being caste > > upon you here by someone trying to sound like they own Krishna and Guru. > > It's not true. You can learn, pay to learn, charge for teaching, and it's > > all good. Nobody can live without giving and receiving. The mechanisms for > > the amounts and exchange are purely cultural. Ours work, for us. It's fine. > > It doesn't diminish the spirituality, at all. Not AT ALL. That's in another > > part of ourselves, and isn't hurt by paying for teaching, not at all. I > > disagree with this implied dogma. > > > > r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Share Posted October 3, 2002 Dear Das, at al, I'm not sure I agree with that - though "Dina dudes" argument IS a good one. It that were the case, then you, Das, might be forced to give away your software, no? for it to be a truly holy instrument. I really don't think you would do that. Frankly, I wouldn't expect you to. By the same token, I see nothing wrong in charging a fee for teaching. I teach Aikido, I never charge a fee - BUT, it is not my livelihood, it is...call it an avocation -- a large PART of my life, but not my whole life. And even in the "OLD" days, gurus, martial arts masters, monks, and the like DID receive remuneration in some form or other, usually a sponsorship in return for the apprenticeship of a son or nephew; or donations. Now, the tendency is to collect the "donation" more "directly" - a charge or a fee for the instruction. The is nothing non- spiritual about that. People pay for tools, software books - and knowledge. Best regards, Martin Das Goravani [] Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:14 PM gjlist [GJ] I don't agree, ji Dina dude wrote: You are right, paying for teaching or anything else is very much there in western society. So if the saying "what you pay is what you get" is true, than when you charge for teaching of Vedic sciences you get material knowledge, not divine knowledge. So it all depends what you want to get or to give. Best regards, Dinanatha Das. ======== This sounds corny to me personally. It's irrelevent, the words of the maya-casting priests, who want to make themselves seem better than others by implying, not directly saying, that they are somehow way better than others. I would like to say: I was like this until I healed. I suggest healing your deep inner subconscious wounds from childhood, non-acceptance, and so on. It's in MANY of us due to the pains of our parents, our own pasts. It's time to heal. Hare Krishna was a catching place for many who needed absolute saviors because the past was really heavy inside them, insurmountable sub conscious pain, actually. In my case, it was effected by an older female Kineseologist. They work wonders helping people to locate their "inner kinks" from childhood. Believe me, you don't believe what you're saying either. It's old priest-craft, and it's days are over. It's a "dieing kick" kindof thing. People are good. People are NATURALLY good. They don't need this in their faces. So again I say to everyone else, ignore the guilt and lowness being caste upon you here by someone trying to sound like they own Krishna and Guru. It's not true. You can learn, pay to learn, charge for teaching, and it's all good. Nobody can live without giving and receiving. The mechanisms for the amounts and exchange are purely cultural. Ours work, for us. It's fine. It doesn't diminish the spirituality, at all. Not AT ALL. That's in another part of ourselves, and isn't hurt by paying for teaching, not at all. I disagree with this implied dogma. r Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat : gjlist- Your use of is subject to 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.