Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 93 , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > A lot of people in this group would consider Arthur Avalon to be > the guru of gurus and his book, Serpent Power, to be the > equivalent of the Bible. To me, he is knowledgeable person who > has investigated many related paths. May be some odd personalities would ). But why U make fun of them when U Urself rely on books by some doubtful authors? Maybe for U Swami Shivananda is guru of gurus and his writings are "bible" of yoga and tantra? ))) At least it is better to study A. Avalon`s writings about tantra than for instance Shivananda`s. Maybe not "Serpent Power" - there are better books by A. A. However nowadays there are enough nice academic publications on tantric themes - like those of Mark Dyczkowski, N. Rastogi, B. Marjanovic, D. G. White, J. Dupuche etc etc. And they are worth reading... A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Do you agree with my explanation of 'sastra' or are you just looking for a fight? If the latter, please look elsewhere. Omprem , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > > A lot of people in this group would consider Arthur Avalon to be > > the guru of gurus and his book, Serpent Power, to be the > > equivalent of the Bible. To me, he is knowledgeable person who > > has investigated many related paths. > > May be some odd personalities would ). But why U make fun of them > when U Urself rely on books by some doubtful authors? Maybe for U > Swami Shivananda is guru of gurus and his writings are "bible" of yoga > and tantra? ))) > > At least it is better to study A. Avalon`s writings about tantra than > for instance Shivananda`s. Maybe not "Serpent Power" - there are > better books by A. A. > However nowadays there are enough nice academic publications on > tantric themes - like those of Mark Dyczkowski, N. Rastogi, B. > Marjanovic, D. G. White, J. Dupuche etc etc. And they are worth > reading... > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 93 , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > Do you agree with my explanation of 'sastra' or are you just > looking for a fight? If the latter, please look elsewhere. Simply do not use that type of expressions and U won`t get reply for that . Then, regarding what U asked about "do i agree": >'Sastra' is probably the same as 'shastra', just as 'Siva' is the same as 'Shiva'. Shastra, as you probably already know, means textbook. Yes for the first. Exactly is "shAstra" (or zaastra in another itrans system). For the second, ok, but IMHO "scripture" is more exact. > There are two views toward the shastras. The Bhagavad Gita says the shastras are a guide to determining appropriate behaviour and the Mahabrarata goes even farther and uses the term, shastra-yoga or yoga of the textbooks, implying that one can attain Self-realization from reading the shastras (of course, one has to understand what is being read). The other view is found in the Yoga Shikha Upanishad where it warns of shastra jala, the snare of textbooks, mere book learning without inner wisdom (a lot of which is in evidence in this and other internet clubs from time to time). These are not "two views". View is only one there - that Shastras are necessary (otherwise who didn`t think so didn`t write shastras! ). What Yogashikhopanishat says is just precaution for people to study Shastras properly . Also originally there was no point of "mere book learning" in the case of yoga and tantra. As U may know there were no published books in time of Abhinavagupta and alike; Tantras were existing in manuscripts which were few. They were kept in secret by some clans (kulas). Thus no outsider had any chance to "merely learn" those texts. Shastras were given by guru to his disciples who already had the base to understand properly as well as some practical realisation. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 See. It is easy to express yourself. That wasn't too difficult was it.? Keep up the good work. Whether your opinion is valid is another matter. And no amount of back and forth disputation will solve that question. At least you expressed yourself well. Omprem , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > Do you agree with my explanation of 'sastra' or are you just > > looking for a fight? If the latter, please look elsewhere. > > Simply do not use that type of expressions and U won`t get reply for > that . Then, regarding what U asked about "do i agree": > > >'Sastra' is probably the same as 'shastra', just as 'Siva' is the > same as 'Shiva'. Shastra, as you probably already know, means > textbook. > > Yes for the first. Exactly is "shAstra" (or zaastra in another itrans > system). For the second, ok, but IMHO "scripture" is more exact. > > > There are two views toward the shastras. The > Bhagavad Gita says the shastras are a guide to determining > appropriate behaviour and the Mahabrarata goes even farther > and uses the term, shastra-yoga or yoga of the textbooks, > implying that one can attain Self-realization from reading the > shastras (of course, one has to understand what is being read). > The other view is found in the Yoga Shikha Upanishad where it > warns of shastra jala, the snare of textbooks, mere book > learning without inner wisdom (a lot of which is in evidence in > this and other internet clubs from time to time). > > These are not "two views". View is only one there - that Shastras are > necessary (otherwise who didn`t think so didn`t write shastras! ). > What Yogashikhopanishat says is just precaution for people to study > Shastras properly . > > Also originally there was no point of "mere book learning" in the case > of yoga and tantra. As U may know there were no published books in > time of Abhinavagupta and alike; Tantras were existing in manuscripts > which were few. They were kept in secret by some clans (kulas). Thus > no outsider had any chance to "merely learn" those texts. Shastras > were given by guru to his disciples who already had the base to > understand properly as well as some practical realisation. > > A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Arjuna Taradasa wrote: > > The other view is found in the Yoga Shikha Upanishad where it > warns of shastra jala, the snare of textbooks, mere book > learning without inner wisdom (a lot of which is in evidence in > this and other internet clubs from time to time). > Yeah, especially among the so-called "experts" in society - no matter how many degrees of science they have. Do not trust the physicans who are led by the nose by the pharmacyindustri! They could kill you, the fourth biggest deathcause in US is side-effects! Regards Lars 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.