British in India: religion and socio-politics

Janus · November 22, 2001

quote:

--

Originally posted by Janus:

"What is PBS?"

Ah, that is better. Submissive and relevant inquiry.

--

Janus

What makes you believe "relevant inquiry" is "better" when a "submissive" component is present?

What is wrong with impartial, reasonable, unbiased and/or objective relevant inquiry?

Why promote as “better” a behaviour that when promoted functions to, and/or leaves room for the dis-empowerment of another.

"From wonder into wonder existence opens"

The Tao of Lao Tzu

Mathmatical information theory maintains, roughly, that information is something new and always a bit surprising, that it is something that you havn't encountered before.

Under this theory, according to Norman Weiner, one of it's inventors, something that you have already seen, already heard, like a painting or a lecture, or even the Gita or the Bhagavatam contains new information if you are open and eager "submissive" in other words, not imposing a static grid of your own expectations between yourself and your perception of the experience.

Scientifically speaking each of us are receiving around 100,000 bits of data simply from our sensory perceptors every single minute of our lives. The very small bit (10 out of 100,000) that we actually attain to any conscious perception of we lable then as fact and often regard as the "whole truth" and nothing but the truth, and all that there is to be gotten from the experience.

What determines what bits of information that we recieve is to a large degree what we are looking for and also what we are able to recognize as having meaning by our ability to fit it into our linguistic grid. In a very real sense then we edit and create the "facts". This all takes place subconsciouly at lightning speed between the moment that the energy from a space-time event impacts our sensory perceptors and the nanoseconds later when it makes its appearance within our minds eye, our image making faculty or imagination as a precept.

When we are sitting at the feet of Guru we are often forgetting that while we are sharing the same existential moment that we are presuming simply through our act of reagard, simply by the fact that we are sitting there, listening, hoping to learn, that the implication is that we the person sitting and he, the guru are situated in two very different situations, two very different conditions of the self in reality and that his is superior or more seeing, more self empowering than ours and that we are hoping for elevation to that position and that we are expecting this through some process of desemination, or reaching or flowing down. If however we are regarding the event as objective, processing it through some static grid, seeking for only those bits of information that aren't new information, not at all surprising instead of being open seeking more and more signals every second, being eager and open or submissive, then we will react passively and nothing will infiltrate through our passive surface.

If however we are indeed eager and open, submissive then it is much more likely that the guru will be able to communicate to us more clearly than if we are being obstinant.

One of the misunderstandings that we frequently are deluded by is the consideration that communication from guru to chela is at the same level, upon the level of mentation, or that it is of the mind. This presumption in and of itself makes us think that whatever information that we are going to get is conceptual, that it is linguistic. We do not even expect that much information will be communicated through other sensory channels such as eyesight, such as the raising of an eyebrow, the fiery glance of an eye or even other qualities associated with hearing such as tonal vibration, inflection, we are instead expecting that all of the info witll be communicated via a linguistic grid. This all is an example of not being eager and submissive or open.

We presume that the words uttered by an uttama adhikari are material sounds not a spiritual substance that carries with it Krsna consciousness. We cannot get it if we are not eager for it and submissive to its reception, just the way it is.

Hari bol

Janus · November 22, 2001

quote:

--

Originally posted by Janus:

"What is PBS?"

Ah, that is better. Submissive and relevant inquiry.

--

Janus

What makes you believe "relevant inquiry" is "better" when a "submissive" component is present?

What is wrong with impartial, reasonable, unbiased and/or objective relevant inquiry?

Why promote as “better” a behaviour that when promoted functions to, and/or leaves room for the dis-empowerment of another.

"From wonder into wonder existence opens"

The Tao of Lao Tzu

Mathmatical information theory maintains, roughly, that information is something new and always a bit surprising, that it is something that you havn't encountered before.

Under this theory, according to Norman Weiner, one of it's inventors, something that you have already seen, already heard, like a painting or a lecture, or even the Gita or the Bhagavatam contains new information if you are open and eager "submissive" in other words, not imposing a static grid of your own expectations between yourself and your perception of the experience.

Scientifically speaking each of us are receiving around 100,000 bits of data simply from our sensory perceptors every single minute of our lives. The very small bit (10 out of 100,000) that we actually attain to any conscious perception of we lable then as fact and often regard as the "whole truth" and nothing but the truth, and all that there is to be gotten from the experience.

What determines what bits of information that we recieve is to a large degree what we are looking for and also what we are able to recognize as having meaning by our ability to fit it into our linguistic grid. In a very real sense then we edit and create the "facts". This all takes place subconsciouly at lightning speed between the moment that the energy from a space-time event impacts our sensory perceptors and the nanoseconds later when it makes its appearance within our minds eye, our image making faculty or imagination as a precept.

When we are sitting at the feet of Guru we are often forgetting that while we are sharing the same existential moment that we are presuming simply through our act of regard, simply by the fact that we are sitting there, listening, hoping to get something, that the implication is that we the person sitting and he the guru are situated in two very conditions, two very different perceptual conditions and that it is only he that sees and is a realized resident in another dimension that we are oblivious to. Yet what is our expectation? Our expectation is that whatever there is to be learned or gotten is to be learned or gotten intellectually. Thus we are considering the words of the guru to be false, mere metaphors, symbols for that which they represent as our words are.

"He who drinks from my mouth will become as me."

Jesus Christ - The Gospel of Thomas

The words spoken by an uttama adhikari are not mundane sound vibrations but spiritual substance, a condensed stream of Krsna consciousness, superjubjective and cognizant, apprehending at every moment your mentality. If you are eager and submissive, service mentality then the relationship is an active dynamic while if you are experiening the situation as being objective and thus reacting passivly then you become inert and it is not through the Gurus unwillingness to communicate, or through Krsna's that you don't get it, but through your simple lack of interest to get it, or through your opposition to it which isn't something that you may be conscious of.

Hari bol