It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You said :
So your argument that the Aryan meaning corrupted in recent times makes no difference to the present meaning. Its denotative meaning has always been the same "noble" for thousands of years and that that takes precedence with me, and it sounds like with most people posting in this thread. You seem to be the only one complaining about the recent meaning, which you treat as if it were fixed forever. It is not fixed, it had a positive meaning for thousands of years, then in the last century it acquired a negative meaning, and again it seems to have acquired a positive meaning again.
Do you really think an omnipotent, benevolent, all-loving God, who considers us his children would really penalize people for their beliefs? Or their sexual preferences? That, IMO, is flawed logic, because he then wouldn't be benevolent, OR all-loving.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Yes and No. Yes, because they do teach of a supreme being known as BRAHMAN, an infinite and absolute divinity that is pure consciousness, but this is unlike the personal creator god of Abrahmic religion. It is more like an absolute reality that underlies all of existence, a profound mystery but which is the source of all wisdom, love and knowledge. The Aryans called this Sat-chit-ananda - existence, truth/pure consciousness and pure bliss. This is the only true reality, everything else is a virtual reality.
Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by Indigo_Child
I understand where your hope lies, but language itself is a second grade mediator only, the first mediator is the ability called speech. And being a mediator (medium) it is actually separating oneself from "god" rather than "uniting" with it.
Knowledge, or understanding, on the other hand, when it reaches its object - truth, does it in direct manner (intuition - insight) and does not need a medium.
Medium as language is only used in an attempt to systematically articulate and relate this knowledge in order to overcome the confusion of reflective mind, and so it "pacifies" it.
There was a learned man, called Bālāki. He wanted to parade his knowledge before an emperor called Ajātaśatru. Here was a learned man, proud of his learning, thinking himself wise, imagining that he knew Brahman, a person born in the family of the sage Gārgya, and he went to the court of king Ajātaśatru, and told the king: "I shall teach you Brahman." The king was highly pleased. "Well, I have a very good Master to teach me Brahman."
What did the teacher tell? Bālāki, the learned man, spoke to the king by way of instructing him in the nature of Brahman. "Do you know how I meditate on Brahman?" asked the scion of the Gārgya. "I meditate upon the sun as Brahman. You also do that meditation." But the king retorted back; he did not accept this teaching. It so happened that the teacher went to the wrong disciple. The king, instead of saying, "I thank you, I shall meditate upon the sun as you instructed me," gave him back in his own coi "Do not speak to me like this. This is not the way I meditate." The king said so, because he seemed to know something more than the teacher himself. "I also meditate upon the sun, but not as you tell. The reason is that the sun is only a conditioned form, and you are considering this conditioned form as the Absolute. This is not the way in which it should be contemplated. There is a reality behind the sun. I meditate upon that. There is a general reality behind the particular form, the sun. Why not meditate upon that instead of the particular form? It could have taken many forms other than the sun, and so if you resort yourself to that general being behind the form, naturally you would be in the realisation of every other form. You will have every form under your control. Now, how do I meditate on the transcendent support of everything? There is an energising vitality behind the sun. That is what I meditate upon, the King of all beings." Sūrya, or the sun, is held by the Veda as the eye of all creatures, the Ātman or the very Self of all beings.
So, Gārgya had failed, but he said: "Well, then I have something else to tell you. I meditate on space itself as Brahman. You follow this instruction. Space is all-pervading; Brahman is all-pervading. So space can be regarded as a symbol of Brahman, which is omnipresent." "Do not speak to me like this." This is what Ajātaśatru, the king, said. "I contemplate space in a different manner, not the way you say. How do I meditate? Pῡrṇam apravartīti: I contemplate on plenitude and immobility. That is the priority in the character of space itself. What is space? It is a completeness of perception, and it is an immobility. Everything moves, but space does not move. It is fullness. If you contemplate fullness or infinitude, space is included in it. So, why go for the manifested form of space? I contemplate on that which is prior to the manifestation of space, the Supreme Bhūma, the fullness of Being, the immobile Reality."
So I am not sure why you are trying to draw some difference between the 2