Here is something interesting

[Guest guest]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

 

Indeed, interesting. Thank you.

Please forgive my lousy formatting. I'm working on a crippled

computer.

 

I must admit I don't follow how the author reached his conclusions,

possibly partly because I don't agree with them:

 

" [....] [T]o what extent [are] the classical rites of passage are

relevant today when science is more and more seen as replacing

traditional methodology of evolution with a modern approach?"

 

"[....] Sometimes science is seen as taking the sacred out

of the picture, [....]"

 

I don't see science as "modern", as opposed to "old-fashioned"

[classical] spiritual processes. To me, the division between science

and spirituality--or seeing them as opposing forces--is artificial

and a misunderstanding of both the goals and means of science. And

in my personal view--if all creation is Hers (or is Her!), then

studying the world (or a part of it) could be seen as a reverent

activity.

 

"[....] However we might consider that the sacred tradition has

produced the conditions to develop science and the spiritual evolution

because "the essential ideas of scientific logic are of religious

origin" (Durkheim E., 1971, p. 429). The struggle was necessary to

create the conditions for a big leap ahead which is in fact the

apparition of a new species (G. de Purucker, 1974)."

 

[From the conclusion]

"Much credit is due to hard work for spiritual evolution and in

finding and following various rites of passage over many generations,

but it seems that the present time might be the end of this kind of

methodology of evolution, [....]"

 

Here, again, he indicates that (at least this) sacred tradition is

possibly outmoded. I am curious as to what he means by "new species."

 

"[....]

Modern science poses a treat [sic.; he means "threat"] to the

traditional sacred experience, as issues of science and its reliable

methodology tend to take the sacred out of life. [....]"

 

It's interesting that he sees science as methodical, as opposed to

traditional sacred practices--that (maybe?) don't use a reliable

methodology. To me, this seems odd on both counts. To speak to the

science portion of this--the heart of scientific method is the

process of *inquiry*--forming a hypothesis and testing it--with

reliable, methodical processes functioning as *tools*.

 

The author's conclusions aside, I would be interested in comments

from our learned members on the earlier portions of the author's

essay.

 

----------

A tangentially related quote:

[....] M[ahendranath Gupta] [...] asked Sri Ramakrishna, "Is the world

unreal?"

 

"Why should it be unreal?" Sri Ramakrishna responded. [...] "The

Divine Mother revealed to me [...] that it was She who had become

everything. She showed me that everything was full of Consciousness.

The image, the altar, the water-vessels, the door-sill, the

marble floor--all was Consciousness [...]

 

As quoted in:

_The Message of the Chandi_

By Devadatta Kali (David Nelson)

http://www.vedanta.org/reading/monthly/articles/2003/2.message_of_chan

di.html

[Guest guest]

I did not post the site because i agreed but as I wanted to stimulate discussion

on a "non-controversial" topic. *smile*

 

msbauju <msbauju wrote:

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

 

Indeed, interesting. Thank you.

Please forgive my lousy formatting. I'm working on a crippled

computer.

 

I must admit I don't follow how the author reached his conclusions,

possibly partly because I don't agree with them:

 

" [....] [T]o what extent [are] the classical rites of passage are

relevant today when science is more and more seen as replacing

traditional methodology of evolution with a modern approach?"

 

"[....] Sometimes science is seen as taking the sacred out

of the picture, [....]"

 

I don't see science as "modern", as opposed to "old-fashioned"

[classical] spiritual processes. To me, the division between science

and spirituality--or seeing them as opposing forces--is artificial

and a misunderstanding of both the goals and means of science. And

in my personal view--if all creation is Hers (or is Her!), then

studying the world (or a part of it) could be seen as a reverent

activity.

 

"[....] However we might consider that the sacred tradition has

produced the conditions to develop science and the spiritual evolution

because "the essential ideas of scientific logic are of religious

origin" (Durkheim E., 1971, p. 429). The struggle was necessary to

create the conditions for a big leap ahead which is in fact the

apparition of a new species (G. de Purucker, 1974)."

 

[From the conclusion]

"Much credit is due to hard work for spiritual evolution and in

finding and following various rites of passage over many generations,

but it seems that the present time might be the end of this kind of

methodology of evolution, [....]"

 

Here, again, he indicates that (at least this) sacred tradition is

possibly outmoded. I am curious as to what he means by "new species."

 

"[....]

Modern science poses a treat [sic.; he means "threat"] to the

traditional sacred experience, as issues of science and its reliable

methodology tend to take the sacred out of life. [....]"

 

It's interesting that he sees science as methodical, as opposed to

traditional sacred practices--that (maybe?) don't use a reliable

methodology. To me, this seems odd on both counts. To speak to the

science portion of this--the heart of scientific method is the

process of *inquiry*--forming a hypothesis and testing it--with

reliable, methodical processes functioning as *tools*.

 

The author's conclusions aside, I would be interested in comments

from our learned members on the earlier portions of the author's

essay.

 

----------

A tangentially related quote:

[....] M[ahendranath Gupta] [...] asked Sri Ramakrishna, "Is the world

unreal?"

 

"Why should it be unreal?" Sri Ramakrishna responded. [...] "The

Divine Mother revealed to me [...] that it was She who had become

everything. She showed me that everything was full of Consciousness.

The image, the altar, the water-vessels, the door-sill, the

marble floor--all was Consciousness [...]

 

As quoted in:

_The Message of the Chandi_

By Devadatta Kali (David Nelson)

http://www.vedanta.org/reading/monthly/articles/2003/2.message_of_chan

di.html

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All your favorites on one personal page – Try My

 

 

[Guest guest]

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

> I did not post the site because i agreed but

> as I wanted to stimulate discussion on a

> "non-controversial" topic. *smile*

 

That's what I figured you were trying to do.

(smile back at you.)

 

I hope some of the group members discuss (in a non-controversial way,

hmmm?) the portions of the essay that precede the science-related

conclusions. It seems to be a pretty Western-flavored analysis; In

the few months that I've been a r, I don't think that I've

seen anybody here reference Mircea Eliade. Other than that

observation, I don't know enough even to venture to comment.

> , sankara menon

<kochu1tz>

> wrote:

> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

[Guest guest]

This article is very confused. It confuses physical evolution with

spiritual evolution. It confuses the limitations of reason with the

limitlessness of intuition, that is, bringing Kundalini to various

chakras in order to access different lokas and receive

information contained therein. It confuses the reality to which

scientific discoveries refer (especially, Ôa mathematical formula

that would capture all of reality at that fundamental levelÕ) with the

Absolute Reality that lies beyond the realm of the senses and

the material plane.

 

Its conclusion is that Òit is necessary to discover other

dimensions of the sacred experience... and therefore raise the

level of consciousness as goal of a spiritual lifeÓ. But it is the

discovery of other dimensions of the sacred that is exactly the

subject matter of the first 80% of the article that focused on the

Upanishads.

 

The authorÕs confusion seems to arise from his realization that

the human body is a microcosm of the Absolute. Instead of

Òdiscovering other dimensions of the sacred experienceÓ, the

author cruises on the surface of his sacred discovery of a

correleation with the functioning of the body with a macrocosmic

explanation of Brahman and ties that experience with the ability

of science to clone a living creature, Òto redesign ourselves in a

conscious wayÓ, as he puts it, to conclude that science has

replaced Brahman as the god to which we should aspire

because science tends Òto take the sacred out of lifeÓ. He would

have been better off viewing the various aspects of the human

body as metaphors that point us to the Absolute and to the ways

of accessing the Absolute. ScienceÕs ability to manipulate the

body only serves to remind us of the inability of applied science

to move beyond the physical. It is only at the outer limits of

theoretical physics that science and spirituality come together

and begin to speak the same language. The discoveries of

physics only confirm what the Upanishads and sages have long

known and proclaimed.

 

It is not that science has replaced religion or spiritual practice

but that science with its emphasis on logic and mathematics

leads those who have that type of learning style toward the

Divine (if they have the intellect for it). Those who use other

learning styles have other methods of coming into awareness of

Brahman. The author makes the same mistakes that countless

thousands of spiritual seekers have made: (1) he fails to

understand the true nature of the spirtitual discoveries that he

makes, (2) he confuses a few spiritual discoveries that he

makes on a path that is suitable for him as all that there is to

discover, (3) he fails to realize that others using different paths

suitable to them will make similar discoveries to those that

author has discovered and (4) he thinks that because he makes

some spiritual discoveries that the path which lead to those

discoveries is the only true path and all other paths are invalid.

 

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

, sankara menon

<kochu1tz> wrote:

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

>

>

> Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection

around

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

>

> This article is very confused. It confuses physical evolution with

> spiritual evolution. [....]

 

I think you're right; I think that's the linkage that connects his

discussion to his conclusions. Thank you.

 

The essay in question:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

 

Another item this essay....he mentions "a new species." While there

isn't enough in the essay for us to venture to guess what the author

might mean, his comment made me think of the references I've seen to

the advent of "Spiritual Man" and references to spiritual evolution

of or for mankind.

 

For example:

>From Kannan Krishan's recent posting:

Sri Ramakrishna's Mission From the book "My Master" by Swami

Vivekananda

"A man may be intellectual, or devotional, or mystic, or active; the

various religions represent one or the other of these types. Yet it

is possible to combine all the four in one man, and **this what

future humanity is going to do**. [Emphasis added.] That was his

[Ramakrishna's] idea."

 

I'm curious as to what place this idea or doctrine has in Hinduism

overall. Is this concept associated with particular masters,

schools, or traditions? Is it relatively new? Is it widely

accepted? What, actually, does it mean????

[Guest guest]

Thank you msbauju,

 

Good observation.

>From Kannan Krishan's recent posting:

Sri Ramakrishna's Mission From the book "My Master" by Swami

Vivekananda

"A man may be intellectual, or devotional, or mystic, or active; the various

religions represent one or the other of these types. Yet it

is possible to combine all the four in one man, and **this what

future humanity is going to do**. [Emphasis added.] That was his

[Ramakrishna's] idea."

 

Well msbauju , it could also be Vivekananda's impression of what Ramakrishna

meant as the book was written by Swamiji.

 

Or I wonder is Swamiji talking about karma jnana bhakthi when refering to

intellectual ,devotional and so forth in one person. But really in practice it

is hard to separate them ...........

 

That reminds me reading once Swami Sivananda mentioning about Yoga of Synthesis

- a combination of all the four most often quoted path (karma jnana bhakthi and

raja yoga)

 

The advent of spritual man reminds me of Sri Aurobindo metaphysical

discussion.Anybody on Aurobindo litreature care to enlighten on this ?

 

Jai Maa!!

 

 

msbauju <msbauju wrote:

 

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

>

> This article is very confused. It confuses physical evolution with

> spiritual evolution. [....]

 

I think you're right; I think that's the linkage that connects his

discussion to his conclusions. Thank you.

 

The essay in question:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

 

Another item this essay....he mentions "a new species." While there

isn't enough in the essay for us to venture to guess what the author

might mean, his comment made me think of the references I've seen to

the advent of "Spiritual Man" and references to spiritual evolution

of or for mankind.

 

For example:

>From Kannan Krishan's recent posting:

Sri Ramakrishna's Mission From the book "My Master" by Swami

Vivekananda

"A man may be intellectual, or devotional, or mystic, or active; the

various religions represent one or the other of these types. Yet it

is possible to combine all the four in one man, and **this what

future humanity is going to do**. [Emphasis added.] That was his

[Ramakrishna's] idea."

 

I'm curious as to what place this idea or doctrine has in Hinduism

overall. Is this concept associated with particular masters,

schools, or traditions? Is it relatively new? Is it widely

accepted? What, actually, does it mean????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

 

U.S./Canada

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard.

 

 

[Guest guest]

The article's idea of 'a new species' and especially

Ramakrishna's exerpt point to a combining of the traditional 4

paths of Yoga - Raja, Jnana, Karma and Bhakti. But this is

hardly a new idea. In the first place, no one is only a Raja, Jnana,

Karma or Bhakti yogi/ni. While we are drawn to one of the 4

paths, we can always enhance our spiritual understanding by

using some the techniques of the the other 3 paths. For

example, a Raja Yogi first practices the yamas on an intellectual

basis in that he/she must intellectually assess their behaviours

in light of the yamas. He/she is thus is stepping into the Jnana

Yoga sphere. The niyama, Swadhyaya or scripture study, is also

stepping into the Jnana Yoga field. These are just small

examples. In my view, it is not possible to follow one of the 4

paths without some assistance from the other 3.

 

Swami Sivananda was famous for his 'Yoga of Synthesis' which

combines elements of the 4 paths and combines tantric and

non-tantric elements. See sivananda.org.

 

Omprem

 

 

, "msbauju"

<msbauju> wrote:

>

> , "omprem"

<omprem> wrote:

> >

> > This article is very confused. It confuses physical evolution

with

> > spiritual evolution. [....]

>

> I think you're right; I think that's the linkage that connects his

> discussion to his conclusions. Thank you.

>

> The essay in question:

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

>

> Another item this essay....he mentions "a new species." While

there

> isn't enough in the essay for us to venture to guess what the

author

> might mean, his comment made me think of the references

I've seen to

> the advent of "Spiritual Man" and references to spiritual

evolution

> of or for mankind.

>

> For example:

>

> From Kannan Krishan's recent posting:

> Sri Ramakrishna's Mission From the book "My Master" by

Swami

> Vivekananda

> "A man may be intellectual, or devotional, or mystic, or active;

the

> various religions represent one or the other of these types. Yet

it

> is possible to combine all the four in one man, and **this what

> future humanity is going to do**. [Emphasis added.] That was

his

> [Ramakrishna's] idea."

>

> I'm curious as to what place this idea or doctrine has in

Hinduism

> overall. Is this concept associated with particular masters,

> schools, or traditions? Is it relatively new? Is it widely

> accepted? What, actually, does it mean????

[Guest guest]

, kanna krishnan

> [....]

> The advent of spritual man reminds me of Sri Aurobindo

> metaphysical discussion. Anybody on Aurobindo literature

> care to enlighten on this ?

 

Is this primarily Sri Aurobindo's doctrine or concept?

> msbauju <msbauju> wrote:

>

> The essay in question:

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3588/kalipage.htm

>

> Another item this essay....he mentions "a new species."

> [....] his comment made me think of the references I've seen to

> the advent of "Spiritual Man" and references to spiritual evolution

> of or for mankind.

> From Kannan Krishan's recent posting:

> Sri Ramakrishna's Mission From the book "My Master" by Swami

> Vivekananda

> t is possible to combine all the four in one man,

> and **this what future humanity is going to do**. [Emphasis added.]

> I'm curious as to what place this idea or doctrine has in Hinduism

> overall. Is this concept associated with particular masters,

> schools, or traditions? Is it relatively new? Is it widely

> accepted? What, actually, does it mean????