|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 06:07:18 AM
|
I have a copy of the B Gita which indicates that Women are less intelligent than Men. When you read opinions on this amongst Gurus, they vary from 'intelligence in a different sense' to 'you just have to believe it'.
Now I personally find it difficult to accept that part of the Gita, neither do I find references to Homosexuality to be considered Demonic. I have never accepted any book on face value - particularly if it is followed by 'you just have to believe it' that smacks of an inability to communicate or worse.
These parts of the Gita I find to be fundamental flaws which make me doubt the whole book.
Can we discuss what is meant by these passages in order to understand the clear meaning, or infact is the Gita just another book which should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I like that Yogani makes no mention of anything in any of the books i own that intone any belief, just the mere practise of an ancient tradition that seems to have the power of change. |
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 07:22:32 AM
|
Yes I agree with you on Gita on the negatives of it. But I wouldnt doubt the whole book. It reflects more of a traditional indian thinking or mentality (i'm an indian too) but there are very good points in Gita and I definitely wouldnt deny the whole book.
We have to take with a pinch of salt, be it books or gurus. Otherwise there is nothing that the guru or the book loses, but it is we who wont be benifitted. |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 1:46:38 PM
|
There's one great line from 'Autobiography of a Yogi', attributed to Babaji (the story of Babaji being something which, in my mind, should be taken with a salt-mine not just a pinch of salt) --
It goes something like this:
Everything in life is a mixture of sand and sugar. Be like the wise ant who seizes the sugar and leaves the sand where it is.
Ironically, I had to do this with the story of Babaji itself!
Do it with scriptures, gurus, and everything else. Ask, 'where's the wisdom', and be ready for the nonsense sprinkled like sand among the sugar of the wisdom. Leave the sand behind.
There is a human mental process which makes us want to believe something holy is one thing or another. This is sacro-mythologization. We put a halo around something and want it to be all sugar. There are ways of coping then with the presence of sand, arising from different levels of understanding and strength.
You can deny the sand exists, even as it scrapes the enamel off your teeth when you eat the sugar.
You can come to the conclusion that there is sand in this, and curse it, and go pursue something else to sacro-mythologize which you think is all sugar instead. Many people who left Christianity in the sixties to pursue Indian religion did exactly this. Then, you'll find sand there and move to something else.
The wisest thing is just to do what 'Babaji' said. Don't sacro-mythologize. Expect nothing to be all sugar.
Usually the human powers of religious organizations won't teach you this important because they want you to sacro-mythologize them.
|
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 2:21:11 PM
|
Sacro-Mythologize......You use these words quite often in many of your posts David. I'm just wondering if you would write what you consider to be the definition of "sacro-mythologizing" for me? How do you define whether or not someone is sacro-mythologizing someone or just trying to create an air of mystery, keep some details unknown or simply stating through hyperbole how much one loves and respects someone? Thanks for the clarification. Not trying to argue with anything you said, I would just like to be clear on what sacro-mythologizing means to you since you use the term so often. Thanks.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
Shanti
USA
4854 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 4:21:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by karl
I have a copy of the B Gita which indicates that Women are less intelligent than Men.
Now I personally find it difficult to accept that part of the Gita, neither do I find references to Homosexuality to be considered Demonic.
Hi Karl,
Could you quote the lines you are speaking of above.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 5:26:53 PM
|
Sacro-Mythologize......You use these words quite often in many of your posts David. I'm just wondering if you would write what you consider to be the definition of "sacro-mythologizing" for me? How do you define whether or not someone is sacro-mythologizing someone or just trying to create an air of mystery, keep some details unknown or simply stating through hyperbole how much one loves and respects someone? Thanks for the clarification. Not trying to argue with anything you said, I would just like to be clear on what sacro-mythologizing means to you since you use the term so often. Thanks.
Superb question Carson. It made me think and wonder if I had a definition of sacro-mythologize.
The phrase 'sacro-mythical' is out there in scientific studies and is something of a technical term for 'religious'. It's good to use the more exact term because there are processes that are sacro-mythical and not 'religious' in the obvious sense. Like, for example, some modern people are developing a sacro-mythical sense of the environment which they would not at all regard or describe as religious. The word 'mythologize' is out there. I'm putting them together into 'sacro-mythologize'.
So it's a 'behavior', and I mean that in a deep sense like an internal, nervous-system behavior, not an external behavior of the muscles.
Here's a quick shot at my definition of 'sacro-mythologize' as in 'I sacromythologize the coke-bottle': to develop and believe incorrect 'mythologies' about someone or something, as part of a dynamic in which that thing is held sacred. I could probably work up a better definition.
Just to make the word more flexible you could also say 'sacro-mythologize' as 'promote the sacromythologization of', so I could sacro-mythologize the coke-bottle (in your mind) by getting you to sacro-mythologize it.
How do you define whether or not someone is sacro-mythologizing someone or just trying to create an air of mystery, keep some details unknown or simply stating through hyperbole how much one loves and respects someone?
In meaning, 'to sacro-mythologize something (in oneself)', the difference is whether you believe these things literally or not. One behavior that exposes that sacro-mythologization has occurred is that a person, on encountering the faults/limits of 'the thing', goes into one of the immature behaviors I mentioned above. Sacro-myhologization entails a tendancy to deny that something is imperfect (limited). The immature behaviors on encountering the faults of the thing can include (i) denial (ii) irrational and aggressive defenses (from insults to war) against valid claims about the faults of the thing and also (iii) unnecessarily rejecting the thing outright if the imperfections cannot be denied.
At the end of the day, I say it's an immature relationship to the thing. First of all, if you really do love it, you can continue loving it in its limits. In that way, I say sacro-mythologization is a kind of infatuation rather than love.
The most problemmatic aspects of sacro-mythologization arise socially in religious wars, and political domination by priest-groups or castes. Just as sexuality impulses can be exploited for power, so can sacro-mythical. My definition of priestcraft is a behavior in which you exploit people's tendancy to sacro-mythologize.
An important battle, rather I should say a war, against priestcraft was won a few centuries ago in Europe which led to the rise of secular western governments. This war was centuries long and involved an immense amount of bloodshed. (The Reformation was an important foundation.). That war has not been completely won on this earth at this point.
Sacro-mythologization also plays out in yoga schools and spiritual groups which can get cultic. To this day (as well as through the 20th century) unscrupulous empire-builders use priescraft to build their empires in the context of Yoga. Many of these unscrupulous empire-builders are still believed to be saints by people even of considerable intelligence. Sacro-mythologization is blind.
It has nothing fundamental to do with enlightenment at all. Absolutely NOTHING. In fact, as the nervous system purifies, it will become more able to reject any effort to manipulate it sacro-mythically, to priestcraft it. However, there are some ironies -- just as your sexual system may be stimulated by yoga process, your sacro-mythical 'system' can also be stimulated by yoga processes.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 01 2008 5:50:55 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 5:36:34 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by david_obsidian
Here's a quick shot at my definition of 'sacro-mythologize': to develop and believe incorrect 'mythologies' about someone or something, as part of a dynamic in which that thing is held sacred. I could probably work up a better definition.
Hi David,
Thank you for your in depth response. I figured you felt the way you do. My only problem with your entire posting is this:
In your definition you used the word "incorrect". Why do these mythologies have to be incorrect to be sacro-mythologizing? Couldn't someone write a true/correct sacro-mythologizing story, or account of someone's life? Especially if the person was someone like Jesus Christ? Not trying to argue with you, I basically agree with you, just trying to figure this one part out. Thanks for conversing.
Love,
Carson |
Edited by - CarsonZi on Dec 01 2008 5:39:50 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 5:45:06 PM
|
Carson, the answer is 'yes', but that comes down to how the word sacromythologize is used, so it is semantic.
The same dual-meaning issue comes up with the word 'mythologize' and even with the word 'myth'. Is a myth something that is false, or or just, well, a myth, a profoundly touching metaphorical view of something? There's a semantic question. It's a shame we have these ambiguities in the words. Joseph Campbell's famous 'Power of Myth' dealt with myth without the connotation that a myth was false -- or even true, for that matter.
I would have no problem with people using 'mythologize' with the connotation that something is true but it would get confusing talking to me in this way. 
Or should I say 'falsely sacro-mythologize'? I'll have to think that one over. It could get wordy...
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 01 2008 5:49:33 PM |
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 5:46:37 PM
|
quote:
There is a human mental process which makes us want to believe something holy is one thing or another. This is sacro-mythologization. We put a halo around something and want it to be all sugar. There are ways of coping then with the presence of sand, arising from different levels of understanding and strength.
You can deny the sand exists, even as it scrapes the enamel off your teeth when you eat the sugar.
You can come to the conclusion that there is sand in this, and curse it, and go pursue something else to sacro-mythologize which you think is all sugar instead. Many people who left Christianity in the sixties to pursue Indian religion did exactly this. Then, you'll find sand there and move to something else.
The wisest thing is just to do what 'Babaji' said. Don't sacro-mythologize. Expect nothing to be all sugar.
I think I agree with David in this one and it seems to me to be a very good point. A good reminder. No one thing is perfect. If we think it is perfect now, it will be imperfect later. It is good to keep this in mind when looking our for perfection  |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 5:50:59 PM
|
Of course perfection does not exist, by our very nature it is the imperfections that mark us out as individual so it's safe to assume the same of any piece of work.
Ultimately, does that mean we should ignore all texts and be completely self reliant on our inner understandings ? How can we test the truth of a supposition.
The term 'less intelligent' can be misconstrued, but in the end are Women any less anything ?
So, if I pick the bits of sand out, does it become the theory of I ? If the theory of I is correct, then there is no need for books at all ? Because of the differences between people, what might be right for one is wrong for another, so do we have fractal beliefs that form a whole in the collective consciousness ? |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 6:08:01 PM
|
So, if I pick the bits of sand out, does it become the theory of I ? If the theory of I is correct, then there is no need for books at all ?
It will have to come down to your best judgment about what you believe and what you don't. Sometimes, you mightn't know for sure if something is 'sand' or not. It will be possible to pick some sugar out and think it is sand. There are no guarantees. You can only do your best.
This obviously doesn't mean being unprepared to learn and not having an open mind. Often, in the early stages or learning, you aren't competent yet to pick the sugar from the sand. You may have to wait until you have a better sense.
|
|
|
|
arzkiyahai
93 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 8:05:23 PM
|
Hi Karl,
Swami Dayanand and many other swamis have discarded Bhagvat Gita, Reason: He says that many of the so called priests (who were just priests of temples but didn't have any real knowledge, have tampered the books to achieve their own selfish ambitions) , similarly a lot of mixtures in the original writings of Krishna.
It is not even Bhagvat Gita, there are plenty of other books which has been discarded due to the amount of mixtures done - like some of upanishads, purans etc.
If you are interested to read about the books discarded in opinion of Swami Dayananda you might like to read "Satyarth Prakash" (the books is mainly made up of recorded discussions by government officials between Swami Dayanand and mostly all famous religions of the world - pointing to that no religion is totally right and all have many flaws, if you can read hindi there are many language masters who have taken the mixtures out just on the basis of language analysis). I believe Yogani has the right approach for us that we should learn the good as much as we can from all the gurus, swamis and traditions.
kindest regards from my heart |
Edited by - arzkiyahai on Dec 02 2008 4:31:57 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 01 2008 : 11:05:09 PM
|
I can see how they would say women are less intelligent: in many places they were not allowed to go to school and "learn" the things men called intelligent. Women think differently than men. When men make the tests, women won't do as well. But if you base intelligence on its real meaning, ability to cope with reality, women do at least as well as men.
I agree with David; if you try to define truth as all in one book, or person, or religion, you are attempting to give up your personal power of discernment. That's like saying somebody else is better than you at deciding what is true.
When you retain your personal power of descernment, you can find truth everywhere.
Words are not good at portraying truth because "for all things there is a season", and different things are true under different circumstances and world views.
Also we use the terms "Gita" and "Bhagavad Gita" interchangeably, but from what I was googling yesterday, the Gita was altered on exposure to Christianity and Islam into the "Bhagavad Gita".
Don't know if it's true, but sounds plausible. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
The Gita refers to women as less intelligent
