Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 In a message dated 10/27/2004 1:12:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time, devi_bhakta writes: > We're trying to end this thread on who is "sattvic" and who is > "tamasic" and who is not. As noted, I think all sides of the issue > have been well-represented, and we seem to have reached a point where > personal attacks predominate. > > For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and TAMAS, > and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real negative > connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective > "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or "impure" as > an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, but > nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage. > > My 2 paise, baby ;-) > > DB thanks for clearing this up, devi, peace, c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 :-) I still remember your original post, which I shared with my group, and perhaps it was somewhere in the back of my mind, whispering these things to me but I didn't hear them so clearly through all the static of current discussion... Myself not being "fluent" in these languages, I appreciate your efforts to make these things clear... and to take the trouble to repeat yourself... :-] Blessings and Peace, Cathie In a message dated 10/27/2004 1:56:38 PM Mountain Daylight Time, devi_bhakta writes: > What was bothering me was the > loose usage of these terms. There is a word "tAmasika" in Sanskrit, > which in Hindi becomes "tAmasik". And in English it is accepted among > scholars, for example, to say "tantric" for example inspite of > "tantrika" -- so maybe in that sense, using a term like "tamasic" is > grammatically sound. > > But the problem is in the philosophical side of it. Back in Message > 11818, I tried to explain (my understanding) that there are three > gunas, or types of quantum particles that constitute all aspects of > the manifest Cosmos. Shakta cosmology posits a (literal *lol*) "Big > Bang"-type genesis for the Universe. Which is the Union of Shakti and > Shiva. > > The material Universe, which is Shakti (Divine Energy) animated by > Shiva (Divine Consciousness) expanded outward from that central point, > the Source or MahaBindu. The three gunas, constituting the substance > of this material expansion, were/are: > > * SATTVA - the tendency upward or inward, toward the Source; > > * TAMAS - the tendency downward, or outward, away from the Source; > > * RAJAS - the neutral dynamic principle, enabling motion in either > direction. > > But a lot of the posts I've been reading here seem to manipulate the > definitions to the point of comedy. Thus we seem to have these goofy > adjectives: > > * TAMASIC - Dirt-talkin', beer-swillin', pot smokin' fool. Thinks > mainly about mainly food, sex and violence, though not necessarily in > that order. > > * RAJASIC - Basically presentable, but don't let them in the parlor. > Unreliable in respectable society. > > * SATTVIC - Saintly! > > Well, that's just ... er, wrong. There is no good/evil parallel at > work here. In other words, it is not accurate to conceive Tamas as > "BAD", Rajas as "BETTER", and "Sattva" as "BEST." That is to say, the > Union of > Shakti in Shiva is not perfect, pure Sattva. It is the perfect, pure > balance of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. > > That's really my only point. > > DB > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 We're trying to end this thread on who is "sattvic" and who is "tamasic" and who is not. As noted, I think all sides of the issue have been well-represented, and we seem to have reached a point where personal attacks predominate. For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and TAMAS, and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real negative connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or "impure" as an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, but nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage. My 2 paise, baby ;-) DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I second that. Blessings, >SophiasHeaven > > >Re: Enough, Please? >Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:26:42 EDT > >In a message dated 10/27/2004 1:12:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time, >devi_bhakta writes: > > > We're trying to end this thread on who is "sattvic" and who is > > "tamasic" and who is not. As noted, I think all sides of the issue > > have been well-represented, and we seem to have reached a point where > > personal attacks predominate. > > > > For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and TAMAS, > > and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real negative > > connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective > > "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or "impure" as > > an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, but > > nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage. > > > > My 2 paise, baby ;-) > > > > DB > >thanks for clearing this up, >devi, > >peace, >c > > > > _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Hi Cathie: You wrote: "thanks for clearing this up, devi, peace, c" Please don't think I'm attacking your message. It just happened to be the last one trickling in on this topic. What was bothering me was the loose usage of these terms. There is a word "tAmasika" in Sanskrit, which in Hindi becomes "tAmasik". And in English it is accepted among scholars, for example, to say "tantric" for example inspite of "tantrika" -- so maybe in that sense, using a term like "tamasic" is grammatically sound. But the problem is in the philosophical side of it. Back in Message 11818, I tried to explain (my understanding) that there are three gunas, or types of quantum particles that constitute all aspects of the manifest Cosmos. Shakta cosmology posits a (literal *lol*) "Big Bang"-type genesis for the Universe. Which is the Union of Shakti and Shiva. The material Universe, which is Shakti (Divine Energy) animated by Shiva (Divine Consciousness) expanded outward from that central point, the Source or MahaBindu. The three gunas, constituting the substance of this material expansion, were/are: * SATTVA - the tendency upward or inward, toward the Source; * TAMAS - the tendency downward, or outward, away from the Source; * RAJAS - the neutral dynamic principle, enabling motion in either direction. But a lot of the posts I've been reading here seem to manipulate the definitions to the point of comedy. Thus we seem to have these goofy adjectives: * TAMASIC - Dirt-talkin', beer-swillin', pot smokin' fool. Thinks mainly about mainly food, sex and violence, though not necessarily in that order. * RAJASIC - Basically presentable, but don't let them in the parlor. Unreliable in respectable society. * SATTVIC - Saintly! Well, that's just ... er, wrong. There is no good/evil parallel at work here. In other words, it is not accurate to conceive Tamas as "BAD", Rajas as "BETTER", and "Sattva" as "BEST." That is to say, the Union of Shakti in Shiva is not perfect, pure Sattva. It is the perfect, pure balance of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. That's really my only point. DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 "For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and TAMAS, and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real negative connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or "impure" as an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, but nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage." This is your view only. There are dozens of gurus who state otherwise and who use the terms tamasic, rajasic, and sattvic. Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of tamas, rajas and sattva. Omprem , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > We're trying to end this thread on who is "sattvic" and who is > "tamasic" and who is not. As noted, I think all sides of the issue > have been well-represented, and we seem to have reached a point where > personal attacks predominate. > > For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and TAMAS, > and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real negative > connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective > "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or "impure" as > an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, but > nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage. > > My 2 paise, baby ;-) > > DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Namaskar OmPrem In the event you may be interested, I qualified and expanded briefly on the reasoning behind my view in this matter at Message 12800 above: /message/12800 While I agree that the view I express is not the only valid one, it is most emphatically not "my view only." It was taught to me by a living guru of traditional lineage (South Indian Srividya Sakta), and confirmed by another of a separate lineage within the same tradition. It is also consistent with a number of received textual authorities, for those who require such validation. But I agree that the terms reflect extremely refined and complex conceptions, and -- as you note -- it is never a bad idea to "revisit one's understanding" on occasion. I read all of our members' posts in that spirit, and hope you will accept mine in the same manner. Let us all express our views with love and kind words -- and let others either accept or reject those views as they see fit, with equal civility. Aum MAtangyai NamaH --- > This is your view only. There are dozens of gurus who state > otherwise and who use the terms tamasic, rajasic, and sattvic. > Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of tamas, rajas > and sattva. > > > Omprem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 I was taught (don't ask by whom!) that the universe is composed of the three Gunas. To talk about being "less Tamasic" is akin to saying "can't you be less tall"? Everything has its Tamasic component, just as everything has height. I also get confused by would-be Tantricists who compare the three modes of Tantric worship, and attribute bad-better-best qualities to them. And years ago, I wrote a parody of this attitude, to wit: Now, Divyas join the Gods as equals (of a sort...), Viryas vie as heroes in a Raja's court, Pashus seek protection like a tethered beast. The Aghoris munch on corpses (what a gross-out feast!). Through Mantra and Tantra, our karmas will cease. That dear ol' Mama Shyamaa gonna bring us release, Every way, every day, through the years! I love, I love, I love my Kalika Girl (yeah, my Kalika Girl...) -- Len/ Kalipadma (Of course Kali Ma has a sense of humor -- doesn't she always have the last laugh?) On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:00:11 -0000 "omprem" <omprem writes: > > > "For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and > TAMAS, and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real > negative connotation, and thus using it to create an English > adjective "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" > or "impure" as an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a > philosophical viewpoint, but nonsense as a matter of > grammatical usage." > > > This is your view only. There are dozens of gurus who state > otherwise and who use the terms tamasic, rajasic, and sattvic. > Perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of tamas, rajas > and sattva. > > > Omprem > > > , "Devi Bhakta" > <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > > > We're trying to end this thread on who is "sattvic" and who is > > "tamasic" and who is not. As noted, I think all sides of the > issue > > have been well-represented, and we seem to have reached a > point where > > personal attacks predominate. > > > > For what it's worth, the Sanskrit terms are SATTVA, RAJAS and > TAMAS, > > and it they are the three elements. TAMAS has *no* real > negative > > connotation, and thus using it to create an English adjective > > "tamas-ic" -- intended to mean, I guess, "un-spiritual" or > "impure" as > > an insult? -- is not only dodgy from a philosophical viewpoint, > but > > nonsense as a matter of grammatical usage. > > > > My 2 paise, baby ;-) > > > > DB > > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > --------------------~--> > $9.95 domain names from . Register anything. > http://us.click./J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM > --~-> > > > > Links > > > > > > > > ______________ Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand. Now includes pop-up blocker! Only $14.95/ month - visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today! 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.