reply for tony-ji

[Guest guest]

harIH OM! tony-ji,

 

it seems incongruent that you would apparently be defensive regarding

what may or may not be considered factual information in *any*

circumastance (where, in this case, disputing what is or isn't in the

gospel of thomas) IF you consider yourself a "pragmatic" adherent of

the ajatavada advaita doctrine.

 

i always saw the ajatavada as a means and not an end. the means or

applied method being the attenuation of the ego-Mind, relieving it of

kutarka (the trap of protracted debating of the speculative polemics

typical in exoteric philosophy). if i may draw a comparison:

ajatavada is to vedanta as what zen is to buddhism (the zens

captalized--rightly so--on the [frequent and thus considered

classical] response of the buddha, which was his remaining silent to

the question of whether or not there is a soul (as well as to *any*

questions regarding metaphysics in general), and thus [the zens]

devised a system of koans as a standard means of achieving what they

called 'mu shin' or no-Mind or empty mind); as well as jesus'

statement regarding the quality of mind as it relates to the

theology of christianity as a whole (i.e. "unless ye have the mind of

a child ye cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."); also as the cabala

is to the torah; sufi mysticism is to traditional islam; etc.. *all*

relate to the dissolution of the developed obsessive habit of

*judgments* in/of the mind. this represents the essence of the

theosophical admonition: "the Mind is the slayer of the Real."

 

as i mentioned in my last post, we have the fortune of being able to

read numerous accounts of not so much the teachings of a modern

paramaguru in sri ramana, but--and FAR more importantly--of his

behavior. for, as the saying goes, "actions speak louder then

words." and his actions *clearly* demonstrated not only dispassion

but compassion!

 

i ask that you [and whoever may be reading this] please read the

early passages of the rigveda. at least where it reveals the "desire

in brahman that wells up during the late stages within the interval

of pralaya (the unmanifest state between what turns out to be as

*cyclical* stages of each manvantara or lila manifestion...an eternal

breathing process)."

 

as far as jesus being married to mary magdaline, according to the

most popular translation of THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY by james

robinson, the gospel of thomas mentions her relationship with jesus,

and it's actually the gospel of mary, where they are shown to have

been married. realize that the rabbis [then and now] are almost

always married. further, that the marriage bears the same esoteric

significance as siva and shakthi, krishna and rada. and that

esoterically, they are considered of equal stature in

atmashakshatkara! the orthodox religions worldwide have sought to

undermine the female counterpart, and therefore eliminated any

reference to what is called the alchemical marriage. this came about

as a result of two things: first, because [within the esoteric

tradition their reference to] the so-called 'profane' are not yet

ready to hear the [projected relative] truth (which was what inspired

sir francis bacon to strategically alter the new testament); and

second, because the *unenlightened* male ego is innately insecure and

understandably requires psychic compensation.

 

again, as i always say, i can very well be wrong. moreover, it might

not be the right sadhana or dharma for a given individual to consider

what i or anyone else says on our List, or anywhere else, for that

matter. each will do and think what they must in any event. the

soul knows what is needed.

 

namaste,

frank