Guest guest Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 ONE When we come across (the phrase) horse sacrifice in our ancient texts, we are supposed not merely to take them metaphorically (or symbolically) but also literally. It has become a fad of sorts in our times to look for pure abstractions and see everything intriguing or siginficant as mere representation. Nothing can be farther from the perspective that makes possible a total understanding of the praxis of the yore -- that of ritualism, from which such dichotomy idly takes away. TWO Even the so-called non-sadhana must be -- I repeat non-sadhana, somehting I and (most of) you can better relate to, with our fun and flights of imagination -- an effort. Let me crack the non-existent oxymoron. Supposing Vinita is a rock, with water (of life) gurgling by her. She is in sadhana mode. She choose not to flow the way the generality of others do. Scenario two. She ain't no rock, is part of the river (or better still a river). She is flowing, yet she can be in sadhana mode. Howz that? When a rock, she's in one of the esoteric paths, with varying degree of esotericness and exclivisity. In scenario two, ie so-called non- sadhana, she's in one of the exoteric paths. It'd be fun for forum to know which one she's tried, if she has. Because ...we too dont know... RK PS: Sadhana and non-sadhana are not to be parsed into rock and river. They are what they are, thanks to resolve (sometimes consecration) and absence (or a lack) thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2007 Report Share Posted March 28, 2007 Dear RK ji, I am yet to get the hang of it!! Or I already had?!! My head is wooblinng.....Wrrrroom...... ) By the way: The Blog of Vinita ji is a great place to visit: http://uk.blog.360./blog-F4Zy0jMic6e2Aq1UFp625oE0lfLh?p=113 & n=28500 Love, Sreenadh , " arkaydash " <arkaydash wrote: > > > ONE > When we come across (the phrase) horse sacrifice in our ancient texts, > we are supposed not merely to take them metaphorically (or > symbolically) but also literally. It has become a fad of sorts in our > times to look for pure abstractions and see everything intriguing or > siginficant as mere representation. Nothing can be farther from the > perspective that makes possible a total understanding of the praxis of > the yore -- that of ritualism, from which such dichotomy idly takes > away. > > TWO > Even the so-called non-sadhana must be -- I repeat non-sadhana, > somehting I and (most of) you can better relate to, with our fun and > flights of imagination -- an effort. > > Let me crack the non-existent oxymoron. > > Supposing Vinita is a rock, with water (of life) gurgling by her. She > is in sadhana mode. She choose not to flow the way the generality of > others do. Scenario two. She ain't no rock, is part of the river (or > better still a river). She is flowing, yet she can be in sadhana mode. > Howz that? > > When a rock, she's in one of the esoteric paths, with varying degree of > esotericness and exclivisity. In scenario two, ie so-called non- > sadhana, she's in one of the exoteric paths. > > It'd be fun for forum to know which one she's tried, if she has. > Because ...we too dont know... > > RK > > PS: Sadhana and non-sadhana are not to be parsed into rock and river. > They are what they are, thanks to resolve (sometimes consecration) and > absence (or a lack) thereof. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2007 Report Share Posted March 29, 2007 Sree, Can't tresspass. If I do that I might meet with rocks. That must be the precint of a Great One. So safer to wait for first-hand invite. :)RK Sreenadh <sreesog wrote: Dear RK ji,I am yet to get the hang of it!! Or I already had?!! My head iswooblinng.....Wrrrroom...... )By the way: The Blog of Vinita ji is a great place to visit:http://uk.blog.360./blog-F4Zy0jMic6e2Aq1UFp625oE0lfLh?p=113 & n=28500Love,Sreenadh--- In , "arkaydash"<arkaydash wrote:>> > ONE> When we come across (the phrase) horse sacrifice in our ancient texts, > we are supposed not merely to take them metaphorically (or > symbolically) but also literally. It has become a fad of sorts in our > times to look for pure abstractions and see everything intriguing or > siginficant as mere representation. Nothing can be farther from the > perspective that makes possible a total understanding of the praxis of > the yore -- that of ritualism, from which such dichotomy idly takes > away.> > TWO> Even the so-called non-sadhana must be -- I repeat non-sadhana, > somehting I and (most of) you can better relate to, with our fun and > flights of imagination -- an effort. > > Let me crack the non-existent oxymoron.> > Supposing Vinita is a rock, with water (of life) gurgling by her. She > is in sadhana mode. She choose not to flow the way the generality of > others do. Scenario two. She ain't no rock, is part of the river (or > better still a river). She is flowing, yet she can be in sadhana mode. > Howz that?> > When a rock, she's in one of the esoteric paths, with varying degree of > esotericness and exclivisity. In scenario two, ie so-called non-> sadhana, she's in one of the exoteric paths. > > It'd be fun for forum to know which one she's tried, if she has. > Because ...we too dont know... > > RK> > PS: Sadhana and non-sadhana are not to be parsed into rock and river. > They are what they are, thanks to resolve (sometimes consecration) and > absence (or a lack) thereof.> Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers 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.