Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

sources

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

 Dear Erin,

Jaya Jagadambe!

Thank you very much for your response.

I believe that it would be more correct that I have opinions that differs from

yours. What makes you think that mine are misconceptions, and yours are the

correct conceptions?

 

However, I believe you have some misconceptions about many other

things, which is shown by a selective (as opposed to thorough)

reading of the gospels.

 

However, I need to ask you about which gospels can you read thoroughly.

The ones that have been written by the Church or the apocripha that have

disappeared?

The works of the Gnostic Christians? The “underground” knowledge of Cathars,

Templars and Alchemists?

 

No, you don’t accept even the Dead Sea scrolls that have not disappeared and

that are unquestionably authentic. At least for me and for many other scholars

and researchers.

C.G. Jung was one of them, and a great supporter of Gnostic Christianism. Was he

ignorant and full of misconceptions?

 

So how can you speak of thorough study?

You mean “thorough study” of what the Church authorities and their ideological

supporters approve and write: sorry, we are talking from two different places

and there is not much hope that we can ever meet. We can only agree to disagree,

and we should stop here.

 

I can’t believe I have to address such kind of arguments on a Shakti Sadhana

newsgroup.

Definitely, from the website outlook I would have never have imagined such a

situation.

 

If I wanted to get lectured by a scholar who only accepts the canonical Gospels

and Bible, and not even the Dead Sea scrolls, I could have d to a

Christian newsgroup!!

Now someone may come up and say that pope John Paul II was also a Shakti

worshiper because he was “a devotee of the Black Lady of Chestokowa”, like many

other Catholics are “devotees of Mary the Mother of Jesus”. Too bad they worship

her for having completely abdicated her feminine power (according to their

version, of course).

 

If you want to be thorough, you cannot be thorough only about a biased,

manipulated and materially motivated source.

 

And what about the “newer revised and better editions”? Editions of what? Who is

inventing them this time? Are these manipulators any better than those who

preceeded them? What is their authority? What authority do you recognize?

 

Unfortunately I am not a scholar of your type, and I don’t want to be one.

I am simply a person who finds information and connects them, confronting with

personal experiences, ALL THE SOURCES that I consider genuine and consistent

(including those from other religions, what to speak of non-canonic gospels!!)

and I verify them with a genuine philosophical debate. Vedic style.

I am not interested in the thesis dissertations of western academic

establishments (especially the Christian educational institutions).

 

In western academics, philosophy is a dead science just like Sanskrit and Latin,

a mere intellectual exercise to see who is able to quote the greatest number of

other books approved by the ESTABLISHMENT.

And where the students are taught to accept biased versions as the absolute

unquestionable truth.

 

I do not accept the Gospels or the Bible, either in King James’ version or in

the new “revised” editions. They have been fabricated to prove, endorse and

empower the politics of the Church.

I quoted King James’ version because this is what most Christians will consider

their version.

I do not care if your gospels and acts of the apostles are synoptic or

non-synoptic: they are just fabrications and lies, either written earlier or

later.

 

And the proof of the pudding is the eating. Can’t you see it?

What has loving Christendom accomplished in 2000 years? The result is the

situation of our world today. Are you happy with the result of the Christians’

work?

We are talking of common sense and opening one’s eyes here, not of academic

definitions and accredited editions.

 

All you are saying is that Jesus actually wanted his followers to go ahead and

convert other peoples at all costs: this is the Churche’s version. Which I

strongly oppose.

Well, if your version is the truth, my respect for Jesus Christ is gone here and

now: he is indeed the cursed cause of the disaster on this planet in these last

2000 years.

 

This is a mentality not specifically linked to Judeo-Christian

groups, but is a mark of extremist religious fundamentalism. Every

religious group, no matter what its teaching, has its violent

extremists, and while it may not be your intention, this statement

seems to peg these specific groups as the source of this sort of

trouble. So I wanted to comment there.

 

Regarding the problems of extremist religious fundamentalism, from my historical

and philosophical research it does appear that religious fundamentalism, with

its related defects of violence and intimidation, falsity, corruption, betrayal

and political maneuvering was relatively (or even mostly) unknown in the periods

before the appearance of the Abrahamic religions.

In all the non-Abrahamic religions and traditions that I have researched about,

freedom of opinion and religious practice was the norm, and it was considered

ideologically impossible to reconcile such concepts as above mentioned with

“religion”.

This was one of the main factors that facilitated the sudden and violent

conquest of more peaceful peoples by Abrahamic nations that based their rights

of conquest on religious grounds.

An example: I read about one Hindu religious teacher who travelled to Rome to

see for himself the seat of the “great religion” that the British were bringing.

On his return, he reassured his friends saying that Papacy was so steeped in

materialism, exhibition of wealth and material power, that it could never be a

threat to Vedic dharma.

The learned and respected brahmana had no idea that religion could be so

hypocritical as to preach poverty and charity and at the same time appropriate

anything existing in the world and ruthlessly exploiting people.

 

My agenda is to fight against the menace that is impending over India.

We have lost Europe, we have lost Africa and the Americas.

If there are people with guts out there, we will not lose India, no matter what

academicians say.

If you want to call it political, you can do so.

I have a very strong memory of direct experiences under the Inquisition, and all

the academicians, the politicians and the theorizers will not change my mind.

 

In the service of Dharma,

 

PKD

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Hi again,

 

Sorry to everyone for this very long response, but I felt that it

needed a thorough one.

 

I think it's clear here that you have not really understood where I

was coming from in my response. Number one, I am not a Christian, nor

have I attended any Christian-based universities for my scholarly

education. My education is integral, from both western and eastern

philosophy. I am trained in the classic Western sense, but also in the Eastern

integral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and others. I am by no means a strictly

traditional Western scholar, but embrace many ways ofknowing and perceiving the

world. I am a Tantrika, and so that is mynature. My understanding of the world

necessarily comes from allworlds, and my work is to try and bridge the gap

between them. Eachhas its strengths and weaknesses, and each evaluates things

differently.

 

Let me explain a few things in the approach to my argument - my

methodology, as it were. First off, the King James Version is used in

the West, but there are many other versions that are just as

frequently, if not more frequently, used. It is often referred to as aclassic

translation, but other modern versions are more commonly usedby common

church-going people, such as the New International Version(NIV), which is

perhaps the most popular; the Revised Standard

Edition, and the New Revised Standard Edition, as well as the New

Jerusalem Bible, etc.

> And what about the "newer revised and better editions"? Editions of what? Who

is inventing them this time? Are these manipulators any better than those who

preceeded them? What is their authority? What authority do you recognize?

 

What makes the newer translations more accurate is that they are

translated by scholars with a better understanding of the ancient

languages, and some of them use earlier and better sources. In fact,

they have less of a tendency to manipulate the source for a particular meaning,

and try to stay more truthful to the text itself, which has angered many

religious leaders in the process.

 

A quick example. The Red Sea that Moses leads the Israelites through

of the King James Version is actually revealed to be the Sea of Reeds

in more accurate versions - referring to swamp land instead of a vast

sea. Add this to geographical, meteorological and historical

considerations, and this completely and utterly changes the mythology! Scholars

tend to use these newer, more technically accurate versions if they don't read

the original Hebrew, Greek, etc. (for that matter,the entire story of Moses is,

I believe, more or less lifted directly from much earlier Mesopotamian mythology

- see the legend of Sargon, written in 2500 BCE, with the story of Moses,

written around 1900 BCE, and you'll see what I mean... the Hebrew Bible and the

Christian Bible are really a mishmash of mythology, history, prophecy and

legend, put together by groups of men with specific agendas, and much of the

banned conflicting material has been destroyed.) I am not a biblical scholar,

but rather a scholar of Eastern religions, but have been trained to critically

evaluate Christian and Jewish mythology and theology. If I were a biblical

scholar, I would be able to read those languages - but I have only a minimal

reading knowledge of Hebrew.

 

Since I'm a scholar of Hinduism, I read Sanskrit (and even that, I am

still learning - though it could be argued that with Sanskrit, one is

forever learning!).

 

The reason I used the verses I did in responding to your argument was

that I was directly addressing *your specific argument.* It wasn't a

question of what source is more "valid" than another, or excluding

sources, or anything of that sort. Rather, what I was trying to do was to show

you where your interpretation was taken from a very limited and out-of-context

reading of a particular verse, rather than placing it into the larger context of

the story. You were using the bible as your main source for your argument, so I

simply used the same source you were using, since that's all that was necessary.

And your argument was a crucial one - to say that Jesus was only there for the

Jews was a very key point to your entire argument, and I believe it was a false

point, from verses taken entirely out of context.

 

For instance, if I had taken a verse from the Gita and built an

argument around that verse, which said one thing, but ignored all the

other verses around it, which showed that it meant something else, I

would expect someone to come and show me the other verses and explain

how putting it in context reveals the actual meaning. This is done all the time,

for example, in Vedic and Upanishadic commentary - using the broader text itself

to explain context and deeper meaning. People have done this with sacred texts

throughout history. So, understand, I was simply trying to provide context and

show you where your argument was flawed and needed a broader understanding.

> No, you don't accept even the Dead Sea scrolls that have not disappeared and

that are unquestionably authentic. At least for me and for many other scholars

and researchers.

 

In terms of important texts, I have never, ever discounted the

importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls as a discovery, or their

significance as a historical source of information - I simply disagree with you

as to their specific significance. Having read and spent months carefully

studying them in the past, I simply don't believe that they contain what you

think they contain. You think that they have teachings of Jesus, I do not. That

is the beginning and end of our disagreement (and I thought I explained this in

my previous post -again, I think that what I wrote was not read carefully).

 

And in fact, I think that there are other discoveries that are more

important in terms of showing a broader picture of early Christianity

than the Dead Sea Scrolls (which really show a radical sect of early

ascetic Judaism, *not* early Christianity). For instance, the Nag

Hammadi Library is a spectacular collection of astounding importance,

which actually do speak to early Christianity, and the variance of

beliefs and materials available before strict canonization. If you get a chance

to read The Thunder, Perfect Mind, it is a beautiful Coptic poem of the goddess,

found amongst early (gnostic) Christian texts.

 

William Barnstone edited The Other Bible, a quite good collection of

apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works that reveal a number of vitally

important sources that most people never get a chance to see, much

less become familiar with, including selections from the Nag Hammadi

library, amongst others. I already mentioned Bart Ehrmann's Lost

Christianities (which includes a section on gnosticism, amongst other

things), and he included a collection of Lost Scriptures as a

companion book, which reveal a number of very interesting and

important texts that challenge what we think about the modern church.

 

I think you have fundamentally confused my criticism of some specifics of your

arguments with a broader criticism that I just didn't make. I in no way, shape

or form deny the existence or importance of the early gnostics, mystics or any

other group - in fact, I made no reference to them at all, and am having a hard

time seeing where you made that very large logical leap.

> C.G. Jung was one of them, and a great supporter of Gnostic Christianism.Was

he ignorant and full of misconceptions?

 

And you make some conflicting statements here, as well. On one hand,

you seem to uphold Jung (a psychologist and philosopher whose ideas

and contributions I generally quite admire, despite some shortcomings

that I won't go into here) as an important thinker, and then later you say you

disregard all of western philosophy and scholarship... yet Jung is in that

category.

 

I think you will find if you speak to me more deeply about these

subjects that I am not a person (or a scholar for that matter) who

defends or toes the church's ideological line. I have made an academic career,

in fact, of challenging and questioning the church's

statements and positions on just about everything (though what I

primarily study, it should be said for full disclosure, has been early Jewish

mysticism and early Jewish-Christian polemics, as well as Hinduism, particularly

Shakta Tantra and Devi worship). I said in my previous argument several times

that I didn't believe the bible to be a historically or otherwise accurate work.

I can only assume that you didn't read my arguments that carefully, and instead

jumped to conclusions and assumed I was making an attack or arguments that I

really wasn't making at all.

 

Finally, I am not a Christian, I am a Tantrika, and feel no need to

defend any religious idealism - and I was not doing so in my email (in fact,

quite the opposite). What I was doing was clarifying,

contextualizing and critiquing your arguments where they were coming

from a place of murkiness or lack of context. Like I said, I don't

think we disagreed in the end, I just wanted to make it clear that

some of your arguments were incorrect, based on the very sources you

were using (by taking them out of context) yourself. What I meant by a "thorough

reading" was just that - to read the entire context of the source, not to pick

and choose verses that seem to agree with what you're saying when taken out of

context (a tactic used by many

religious fundamentalists). This has nothing to do with church

doctrine or authority, it simply has to do with reading and quoting

the source with integrity in a thorough and complete way.

 

> If you want to be thorough, you cannot be thorough only about a

biased,manipulated and materially motivated source.

 

Yet, you were doing the very thing you here condemn... you were using

the bible, and so I simply gave context to some of the verses you were quoting.

I use other, wider sources all the time, but that wasn't necessary for this

specific critique, which was simply that you were taking verses out of context

to make them seem like they had meanings they didn't actually have.

 

You and I are not so different as you think we are... We are both, I

am assuming, well-read, somewhat learned and passionate individuals in pursuit

of a common goal, which most certainly is a peaceful world and understanding

amongst religious peoples. I suspect I may have just ruffled your feathers a bit

when I called out your questionable use of some verses, and that may have

clouded your reading of my critique.

 

As far as Abrahamic religions being the source of all strife and

conflict, I don't think this is entirely true, either. One of the

early recorded examples of religious oppression is in the apocryphal

book of Maccabees. A Greek general outlawed Hebrew worship, and turned the

temple at Jerusalem into a temple to Zeus. You can imagine the outrage, since

pigs were slaughtered as a sacrifice to Zeus at that temple, and pigs are one of

the ultimate non-kosher animals, rendering the entire temple unclean,

particularly the most sacred stone where the sacrifices were performed. This

spawned a huge revolt by the Jews against the occupying force, and spawned a

couple of Jewish holidays in the process.

 

There is also very early evidence even in the early Aryan hymns of

Vedic times that the Aryans conquered another group of "dark" people,

and talk about their inferior ways, their inferior gods, etc. There is a

plethora of evidence which, if read from a non-traditional,

non-patriarchal perspective, sheds an incredible light on early

civilization in India. My own course of study at the moment

investigates Tantra, puja and other forms of worship as a survival of

indigenous devi worship suppressed by patriarchal religion of the

Aryans, and even of the earlier civilizations of Harappa and

Mohenjo-daro. There's also evidence of religious oppression amongst

early civilizations in South America, Africa, Europe, etc... There is

certainly evidence of religious oppression that pre-dates, and is

independent of, the Abrahamic religions throughout the world, so I

would be careful to do further study and not rely upon a prejudicial

presupposition or assumption.

 

Of course, that being said, I do not discount the many hundreds of

years of peaceful existence and tolerance of various religions within

India - though again, there are records of strife and conflict, be it

physical, political or idealistic. Wherever humanity is, there also is human

nature, and there are those who wish to control and dominate

others, and who use religion as a very personal tool to force their

ideas onto others, or to manipulate and influence those who share

their religious beliefs. There are also those who wish for peaceful

coexistence and mutual respect.

 

At any rate, I don't mean to offend, I simply wish to illuminate and

contextualize. That is my own dharma as a scholar, and one that I do

try to take great care with.

 

jai maa,

shanti sa'ham,

erin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...