Guest guest Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Dear Mary Ann, you guessed right: I want readers to see what kind of situation is out there. Regarding the non-necessity of actually posting articles in their entirety and “spreading it around even further” I am not fully sure about what you mean. Do you mean that news like this should not be circulated? Is it better not to know what is going on? The point that I want to make is that the Christian mentality in general is not respectful of Vedic Dharma or knowledge, and tries (in as many ways as possible) to discredit it. And this fact should be clear and not remain in an artificial misty aura of “peace, love and respect”. Once the point is made and acknowledged, I won’t see the necessity of continuing to affirm it, while it seems to me that clarifications and examples are needed as long as someone keeps defending what is, to me, blatantly untrue, artificial and sentimentalistic. If you want to use the physical positions of yoga without acknowledging their root and their deeper meaning, you can do what Usui did, and just call it something else – Reiki or anything you like. Why attacking Hinduism? Anyway, you are free to read or not to read whatever you like, and you are also free to boast and pride yourself about avoiding to read what you think you won’t like, and to put your attention where you want. I did read your posting re trasformation, and I understand that we should not mistake the raft for making the journey. But scorning the raft and closing one’s eyes in front of sharks, cliffs and rapids isn’t so clever either. They won’t go away because you choose not to put your attention to them. The former Buddhist states are a good example. Yesterday on BBC there was a report on a temple complex at Pagan, Burma, which is being destroyed to make golf courses and hotels to attract tourists, and nobody can say a thing because the military regime is anything but Buddhist. Buddhism is great when everybody is Buddhist already: it preaches total non-violence, and total non-violence is feasible only when everybody respects and practices it. However, total non-violence is wonderfully suiting the plans of external aggressors. Try quoting nice aphorisms to the Burmese police. That’s precisely why Buddhist monks leave Viet Nam to go preach in the USA. And one day the same situation may come to pass even in the USA, thanks to Bush and those who re-elected him. What will Thich Nhat Hanh do then? Go into nirvana? The shaolin monks (the real ones, not David Carradine) got the point and that’s why Buddhists still have a place in some states. You can make your own raft if you don’t like the Vedic one, but before passing judgments or discarding something (that has a value honored by time) it is always better to try to understand it. PKD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Dear paramakaruna, If you are outraged by an article you come across, why not write your own thoughtful, articulate post telling what you see in articles such as the one you posted. Quote a paragraph from the offensive article, and provide a link to it for those who want to read more after they read your post. Otherwise, you basically handed over our beautiful Shakti Sadhana to the author of that article, who had the good grace not to post it here himself. It's your choice whether to read my post or not. The tone of your message below sounds like you are in misunderstanding, and reacting to your own misunderstanding, rather than informing yourself by reading my post. It's funny, because you say your reason for posting that article was because we need to know what's out there. But my post was not anti-Hindu drivel. You would choose to use this space to post that, but not to read something I took thought and care to post for you to read here. BTW although I quote Thich Nhat Hanh when I feel its apt to do so, I read that a lesbian couple who had registered to stay at Hanh's Plum Village in France had their application rejected. They were told that the people there wouldn't understand their relationship. They were told that they could register individually and live in separate quarters while there. Married couples register and stay together there all the time. But apparently, although human sexuality in its myriad forms has been around since humanity began, the supposedly spiritual types that go to Hanh's Plum Village, and those who run it (Hanh himself?) didn't want to deal with it. , "Parama Karuna Devi" <paramakaruna@r...> wrote: > Dear Mary Ann, > you guessed right: I want readers to see what kind of situation is out there. > Regarding the non-necessity of actually posting articles in their entirety and "spreading it around even further" I am not fully sure about what you mean. > Do you mean that news like this should not be circulated? Is it better not to know what is going on? > > The point that I want to make is that the Christian mentality in general is not respectful of Vedic Dharma or knowledge, and tries (in as many ways as possible) to discredit it. And this fact should be clear and not remain in an artificial misty aura of "peace, love and respect". > Once the point is made and acknowledged, I won't see the necessity of continuing to affirm it, while it seems to me that clarifications and examples are needed as long as someone keeps defending what is, to me, blatantly untrue, artificial and sentimentalistic. > > If you want to use the physical positions of yoga without acknowledging their root and their deeper meaning, you can do what Usui did, and just call it something else – Reiki or anything you like. > Why attacking Hinduism? > > Anyway, you are free to read or not to read whatever you like, and you are also free to boast and pride yourself about avoiding to read what you think you won't like, and to put your attention where you want. > > I did read your posting re trasformation, and I understand that we should not mistake the raft for making the journey. But scorning the raft and closing one's eyes in front of sharks, cliffs and rapids isn't so clever either. They won't go away because you choose not to put your attention to them. > > The former Buddhist states are a good example. Yesterday on BBC there was a report on a temple complex at Pagan, Burma, which is being destroyed to make golf courses and hotels to attract tourists, and nobody can say a thing because the military regime is anything but Buddhist. > Buddhism is great when everybody is Buddhist already: it preaches total non-violence, and total non-violence is feasible only when everybody respects and practices it. However, total non-violence is wonderfully suiting the plans of external aggressors. > Try quoting nice aphorisms to the Burmese police. That's precisely why Buddhist monks leave Viet Nam to go preach in the USA. And one day the same situation may come to pass even in the USA, thanks to Bush and those who re-elected him. What will Thich Nhat Hanh do then? Go into nirvana? > The shaolin monks (the real ones, not David Carradine) got the point and that's why Buddhists still have a place in some states. > > You can make your own raft if you don't like the Vedic one, but before passing judgments or discarding something (that has a value honored by time) it is always better to try to understand it. > > PKD > > > > 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.