Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 93 Greetings! As far as Ur statement about "attacking" refers to me as well, i give an answer to it. That book by "sufi author" (i strongly doubt it is a real sufi) is obviously diverting and misinterpreting one of great spiritual traditions (that is not lesser than islam or hinduism). In fact it has "covered" aparadhas of Jesus and simply of Truth. Besides that it is tipically non scientific and new-age based. That is why it is NEEDED to witness that. Hope it is not me giving U a title of "tamasic" - i do not know U. There is also no intention to dishonour. But honouring women doesn't mean we have to agree to whatever nonsense they can say LOL. Same is the case when men say nonsense. We have to judge by sattarka (right logic), not by status of somebody. The fact that something is said by woman, guru, sufi, priest or president doesn't itself make the statement true. Hope it is understandable . With respect, A. , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Hello Devi Bhakta: > > You have received some interesting posts on this topic. I agree with > the poster who said that bad behavior occurs in both genders, and > that upholding integrity in interactions and representations > effectively honors everyone involved, and Devi, no matter what the > circumstance or outcome of the case. I also think that each human > being does incorporate both female and male (Ardhanari), though it's > been religiously ordained and socially constructed to devalue the > female/feminine aspect. So, honoring Devi now is a way of correcting > this longstanding imbalance. > > At the risk of causing a stir, I want to say that I have been > personally attacked by esteemed male members of this group for > posting words that speak from my heart, whether that is because I am > a woman or not, I don't know. But it's been consistent. > > It has been said to me on this list that I am "tamasic" and that I > have no spiritual conviction. Recently, I posted quotes from a book > by a Sufi author (from The Hidden Gospel) and 3 esteemed members of > this group disparaged me for my interest and enthusiasm for the book, > personally criticizing my approach to spiritual matters. Even when my > particular understandings are supported by Hindu teachings, yoga > philosophy, and teachers and leaders like Nityananda, Ramana > Maharshi, Gandhi, and others, some male members have had difficulty > with my posts. > > I'm saying this because I certainly have not felt honored or > respected by these kinds of reactions to my posts. However, I do see > each human being as a manifestation of the Ardhanrishwara/i, and I > recognize that the struggles that take place externally between male > and female, or female and female, or male and male, also take place > internally in each person. I have learned during my time on this list > that when someone attacks or disparages me, they are doing that to > some part of themselves. > > Om Shaktishivyaikya Rupinyai Namaha > > Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Dear Arjuna: No, someone actually had a violent reaction to one of my posts after I first joined the group and called me "tamasic" then. I understand that you are concerned with being true to science and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of human understanding. Regards, and thanks for your post. Mary Ann , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 Greetings! > > As far as Ur statement about "attacking" refers to me as well, i give > an answer to it. > That book by "sufi author" (i strongly doubt it is a real sufi) is > obviously diverting and misinterpreting one of great spiritual > traditions (that is not lesser than islam or hinduism). In fact it has > "covered" aparadhas of Jesus and simply of Truth. Besides that it is > tipically non scientific and new-age based. That is why it is NEEDED > to witness that. > Hope it is not me giving U a title of "tamasic" - i do not know U. > There is also no intention to dishonour. But honouring women doesn't > mean we have to agree to whatever nonsense they can say LOL. Same is > the case when men say nonsense. We have to judge by sattarka (right > logic), not by status of somebody. The fact that something is said by > woman, guru, sufi, priest or president doesn't itself make the > statement true. Hope it is understandable . > > With respect, > A. > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > Hello Devi Bhakta: > > > > You have received some interesting posts on this topic. I agree with > > the poster who said that bad behavior occurs in both genders, and > > that upholding integrity in interactions and representations > > effectively honors everyone involved, and Devi, no matter what the > > circumstance or outcome of the case. I also think that each human > > being does incorporate both female and male (Ardhanari), though it's > > been religiously ordained and socially constructed to devalue the > > female/feminine aspect. So, honoring Devi now is a way of correcting > > this longstanding imbalance. > > > > At the risk of causing a stir, I want to say that I have been > > personally attacked by esteemed male members of this group for > > posting words that speak from my heart, whether that is because I am > > a woman or not, I don't know. But it's been consistent. > > > > It has been said to me on this list that I am "tamasic" and that I > > have no spiritual conviction. Recently, I posted quotes from a book > > by a Sufi author (from The Hidden Gospel) and 3 esteemed members of > > this group disparaged me for my interest and enthusiasm for the > book, > > personally criticizing my approach to spiritual matters. Even when > my > > particular understandings are supported by Hindu teachings, yoga > > philosophy, and teachers and leaders like Nityananda, Ramana > > Maharshi, Gandhi, and others, some male members have had difficulty > > with my posts. > > > > I'm saying this because I certainly have not felt honored or > > respected by these kinds of reactions to my posts. However, I do see > > each human being as a manifestation of the Ardhanrishwara/i, and I > > recognize that the struggles that take place externally between male > > and female, or female and female, or male and male, also take place > > internally in each person. I have learned during my time on this > list > > that when someone attacks or disparages me, they are doing that to > > some part of themselves. > > > > Om Shaktishivyaikya Rupinyai Namaha > > > > Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 93 I was not speaking that time about spiritual truth "as it is". We were discussing some facts - that was the point. It is not my intention to preach Christ to U. If U will, U will Urself allow Him come into Ur life. It is Ur and anyone's else right to live as U like, to think and do as U want. There is no problem with it. But IF we discuss scripture, tradition or other FACTS, we have to be objective. If U disagree with tradition it is not the reason to start misinterpreting it - just leave it to itself and those interested in it. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. A. , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Dear Arjuna: > > No, someone actually had a violent reaction to one of my posts > after I first joined the group and called me "tamasic" then. > > I understand that you are concerned with being true to science > and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or > scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make > those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of > human understanding. > > Regards, and thanks for your post. > > Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 I understand that you are concerned with being true to science and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of human understanding. [Mouse] Mary Ann, certainly not all that a tradition says, is true. But second-guessing what words the written scriptures meant to use - leads even further away from the Truth. Because now one compounds modern biases on top of the old ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Hi Mouse: You have a point, but your point does not address the truth that is sometimes available through "intuitive" leaps. Second guessing can lead away from the truth, but opening up your mind to other meanings that words have can bring about an "ah ha" experience, a leap to a new understanding or insight. , Mouse <uri@o...> wrote: > I understand that you are concerned with being true to science > and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or > scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make > those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of > human understanding. > > [Mouse] Mary Ann, certainly not all that a tradition says, is true. But > second-guessing what words the written scriptures meant to use - leads even > further away from the Truth. Because now one compounds modern biases on top > of the old ones. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Dear Arjuna: Calling scripture or tradition "facts" does not make them objective realities or truth. Here is a joke for you to lighten the mood: Q: When is a door not a door? (KJV: "I am the door.") A: When it is ajar. , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 > > I was not speaking that time about spiritual truth "as it is". We were > discussing some facts - that was the point. > It is not my intention to preach Christ to U. If U will, U will Urself > allow Him come into Ur life. > It is Ur and anyone's else right to live as U like, to think and do as > U want. There is no problem with it. > But IF we discuss scripture, tradition or other FACTS, we have to be > objective. If U disagree with tradition it is not the reason to start > misinterpreting it - just leave it to itself and those interested in > it. > > There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. > > A. > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > Dear Arjuna: > > > > No, someone actually had a violent reaction to one of my posts > > after I first joined the group and called me "tamasic" then. > > > > I understand that you are concerned with being true to science > > and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or > > scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make > > those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of > > human understanding. > > > > Regards, and thanks for your post. > > > > Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 93 Well, either U are pretending or indeed not understanding the simpliest thing. We DO NOT speak of whether Jesus "is a door" in objective reality or not. We speak about what is meant by his phrase (be it true or wrong). And those "meanings" suggested by named author are objectively wrong. Pentax K1000 has a center-metering - it is a fact. Though matrix metering sistem is better, it is not a reason to say that K100 has it :-). Isn't it understandable? Even if U think Jesus is wrong or christian tradition is wrong and U are right, it is not a reason to misinterpret! Just say "Christianity is wrong, new-age is good" or whatsoever, U have a right to have any opinion. Do not invent some fake "new-age version" of christianity "for dummies" LOL. A. , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Dear Arjuna: > > Calling scripture or tradition "facts" does not make them > objective realities or truth. > > Here is a joke for you to lighten the mood: > > Q: When is a door not a door? (KJV: "I am the door.") > > A: When it is ajar. > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > > > I was not speaking that time about spiritual truth "as it is". We > were > > discussing some facts - that was the point. > > It is not my intention to preach Christ to U. If U will, U will Urself > > allow Him come into Ur life. > > It is Ur and anyone's else right to live as U like, to think and do > as > > U want. There is no problem with it. > > But IF we discuss scripture, tradition or other FACTS, we have > to be > > objective. If U disagree with tradition it is not the reason to start > > misinterpreting it - just leave it to itself and those interested in > > it. > > > > There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. > > > > A. > > > > , "Mary Ann" > <maryann@m...> > > wrote: > > > Dear Arjuna: > > > > > > No, someone actually had a violent reaction to one of my > posts > > > after I first joined the group and called me "tamasic" then. > > > > > > I understand that you are concerned with being true to > science > > > and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or > > > scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make > > > those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of > > > human understanding. > > > > > > Regards, and thanks for your post. > > > > > > Mary Ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................... , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > 93 > > Well, either U are pretending or indeed not understanding the > simpliest thing. We DO NOT speak of whether Jesus "is a door" in > objective reality or not. We speak about what is meant by his phrase > (be it true or wrong). And those "meanings" suggested by named author > are objectively wrong. > Pentax K1000 has a center-metering - it is a fact. Though matrix > metering sistem is better, it is not a reason to say that K100 has it > :-). Isn't it understandable? Even if U think Jesus is wrong or > christian tradition is wrong and U are right, it is not a reason to > misinterpret! Just say "Christianity is wrong, new-age is good" or > whatsoever, U have a right to have any opinion. Do not invent some > fake "new-age version" of christianity "for dummies" LOL. > > A. > > , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> > wrote: > > Dear Arjuna: > > > > Calling scripture or tradition "facts" does not make them > > objective realities or truth. > > > > Here is a joke for you to lighten the mood: > > > > Q: When is a door not a door? (KJV: "I am the door.") > > > > A: When it is ajar. > > > > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > 93 > > > > > > I was not speaking that time about spiritual truth "as it is". We > > were > > > discussing some facts - that was the point. > > > It is not my intention to preach Christ to U. If U will, U will > Urself > > > allow Him come into Ur life. > > > It is Ur and anyone's else right to live as U like, to think and > do > > as > > > U want. There is no problem with it. > > > But IF we discuss scripture, tradition or other FACTS, we have > > to be > > > objective. If U disagree with tradition it is not the reason to > start > > > misinterpreting it - just leave it to itself and those interested > in > > > it. > > > > > > There is no law beyond do what thou wilt. > > > > > > A. > > > > > > , "Mary Ann" > > <maryann@m...> > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Arjuna: > > > > > > > > No, someone actually had a violent reaction to one of my > > posts > > > > after I first joined the group and called me "tamasic" then. > > > > > > > > I understand that you are concerned with being true to > > science > > > > and scripture and tradition, etc. But the fact that science or > > > > scripture or tradition say certain things also does not make > > > > those things true. It's all relative and based on the limits of > > > > human understanding. > > > > > > > > Regards, and thanks for your post. > > > > > > > > Mary Ann 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.