|
Docta Ignorantia LXVI Sonrise I So-And-So, I have realized what it is you wish us to understand: vedanta and, therefore, the parameters of acceptable discussion are the details of your marketing plan for your line of products. Vedic/Pythagorean scholars and theraputes do not accept much less require consideration in consequence of the discharge of their reqponsibilities for these arts. Theraputes are supported by monastic communities and scholars by governments or, preferably, each is supported by the manual labor of their own hands. St. Benedict's great lesson to civilization, as that was collapsing in consequence of pan-commercialization, was to protect these two most essential, most precious human activities -- fostering health and fostering craftsmanship -- by deriving the livelihood of their adepts from manual labor unrelated to their professional responsibilities. It worked beautifully and still does. Being above commerce, the crafts and their adepts were disinterested and therefore trustworthy. St. Benedict reestablished Vedic/Pythagorean practice in this as well as in other respects in Europe. You're right: you and I [today] mean different things by the word "vedanta" and its kindred. This is not necessary. You are able to mean by the word what it means. If you are a therapute, as you claim, you must ditch the product line and marketing plan and, instead, receive livelihood from unrelated manual labor, government-supplied benefits, personal savings and/or a sympathetic monastic community. Not from the craft. David II So-And-So, Wrong! You pitch artists really have hutzpah. You train to it and it compels my admiration. "You are a genuis at your art, my dear Balls."* But my funny friend, you're a hustler, you're not talking about yoga or vedanta. You're pitching products. *Again, a great line I can't claim: Blake Edwards, "Trail of the Pink Panther," spoken by Chief Inspector Clouseau (Maestro Peter Sellers) to his disguise maker, Dr. August Balls of Nice (Harvey Corman). David III To Group, S-And-So wants to be able to say that what is happening is what he wants to be happening and what isn't happening is what he doesn't want to be happening. Carroll named this character The Red Queen, she the personfication of a meta-random system. For example: When someone points out one of his gruesomely hypocritical inconsistencies, So-And-So waves the whole discussion off by calling it and all its referents "not happening." And when he wants to explain an experience or a phenomenon he attributes a [highly happening] cause-and-effect relationship involving, no less, planetary movements!!! As Carroll said, a meta-random system is a perfect position for argument: one is always right and everyone else is always wrong: "Off with their heads," says the Red Queen, expressing meta-randomness with superb elegance. The Vatican has used this position for nearly two millenia, so we know it is both appealing and effective, at least to a point. It is also -- which is critical to So-And-So as a businessman -- a fascile sales environment because it so easily sows so much disconfidence in the target customer's own ability to discern that the pitchman can then readily "remedy" the target's uncertainty with a sale of the product being pitched. Again, the Vatican has used this approach for centuries. Philosophically it's called Nominalism. It is used by our so-called scientists to raid the public purse for "research." This discussion of scripting needs to be limbered up and freed of tendention. It is being assumed that scripting is a thing of the past, from the past. As Brice recently suggested, this isn't the case. Scripting is a current phenomenon. It is precisely what is happening -- even the Red Queen/So-And-So wants to be active/happening -- now. And all that is is now The truth of what So-And-So wants to be saying is very important and necessary and he keeps fouling it up by using ham-handed language and uncareful logic driven by that sales agenda, which is unfortunate and regressive, and it can be put this way: all time fields are concurrent, or, all that is is now. Discussion of scripting has to occur in this awareness, else we are talking about linear time or duration and then karma and this is just a complete misunderstanding and foolishness. There are five dimensions, corresponding to the five elemental principles. All is happening in these five dimensions simultaneously. Atma is happening in these five dimensions simultaneously ... by self-intention, self-limitation. There is nothing that is not fully happening fully simultaneously in these five dimensions. They are: height, width, depth, duration and elegance. Simultaneity, concurrency, pan-o-rama. This is the realm of happening and, what is the same thing, non-happening. Scripting is occurring now in these five dimensions simultaneously. All time fields are concurrent. The discussion should reflect at least a modicum of this truth, as Brice suggested recently. There is no room for sales because truth is a playground for the fully present and empowered. Not a sales floor. A playground. For having fun simultaneously in all the dimensions and through all the concurrent time fields we call "life." As Vedas say, the purpose of life is to laugh, to dance and to sing. Scripting is just what anyone determines to do. Atma is the only exist-ant. Atma "wills" that's "scripting." So-And-So "wills" that is Atma "willing." Brice "wills" that is Atma "willing." Mary "wills" that is Atma "willing." etc. etc. etc. "Scripting" is a term from the realm of the theatre. It has limited utility for indicating the truth. Ultimately, it is insufficiently impartial to be useful in a vedanthic discussion. The same is true of the word "happening," which is from the realm of drugs and so has even less utility than "scripting" in a vedanthic discussion. "Play," "simultaneity," "will," etc. are vedanthic terms, impartial and therefore useful extensively. Everyone's will -- including our cat Blighter's -- is Divine Will. All are scripting themselves now and always. This is what's happening. ... And all "scripting," all "will," all "happening" is soteriologically progressive, teleologically redemptive, ethically expansive. There is ineluctable salvic purpose to this entire enterprise. David IV Sai Ram, Davidji! Your last several postings have taken a decidedly personal turn. I understand you object to Vedanta as a business; and if I felt that way, I might well want to disconnect myself from supporting such a process as the VSN. For me, offering healing and Enlightenment as a means of self-support is the highest aspect of "right livelihood," as I have told you. And this viewpoint will not change. But it seems certainly right and reasonable to offer you the option of excusing yourself from further supporting the list, feeling as you do. I would much rather you simply withdraw your financial support than to cause you the discomfort you obviously feel. I can easily go back to my old way of keeping in touch with those friends -- many of them our local students -- who value the interaction of e-netting, and applying the principles of AV they have been taught to their daily lives. I have no interest in defending myself from personal attacks, nor will I. Defending my sometimes outrageous viewpoint is challenging enough. However, I will feel no offense or anger if you wish to withdraw your support. The list has been fun, and served a useful purpose to this point. It need not go any further. I repeat: There will be no hard feelings -- I, myself, would certainly never want to financially support something I don't morally support; nor (do I imagine) would you. I wish you and [bride] a happy New Year. Sai Ram! So-And-So So-And-So, I understand what you're saying here: you feel you're losing business actually or potentially on account of my theological comments on your desire to turn spirituality into a saleable product. My comments are theological. There is nothing personal about them. There is no disquiet in my soul. I am very happy with developments on VSN, as I have stated repeatedly. It is my responsibility to tell Everyman, such as you want to be in this instance, who wants to make a buck selling an appearance of spirituality that (1) they can't sell spirituality and (2) what they are selling is not spirituality but a counterfeit thereof. It's not personal. It's theological. And I'm sure you are able to stand up to the examination and the discussion. What you've got here is traditional, mainline spirituality facing commercialism going under the guise of spirituality ... the genuine facing the counterfeit. It's not personal. It's theological. Your comparison with Janaka isn't apt: Janaka was a king, the money he had was from inheritance and taxes and furthermore he used it for the benefit of the people, whereas, your money is from commerce and is used by and large for your own benefit. You're a businessman. Janaka was a ruler. The two callings are incomparable. Sages have no objection to wealth per se. We object to commerce in the sacred. This we will not tolerate. David V Nice writing. Warmest thanks for all your well-made points. Now, the only person who feels under attack is one who identifies with their body. Need I say more? But if one can't but identify with the body, then St. Paul's advice is relevant: don't kick against the goad. So-And-So
Adwaitha Hermitage
|
