Hari Karam Singh
23 Jan 2014
The biggest point, I believe, from the lecture was that we are trying to shine a light on our assumptions and our unconscious ideologies – and not form new ones – so that they don’t accidentally ruin our ability to acquire the very knowledge that we are seeking with this course
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
23 Jan 2014
This has been strictly an exercise in identifying assumptions we have, because of our cultural and linguistic upbringing, not that they are wrong or inaccurate, but only that they are assumptions – meaning that we may view them as potential obstructions to the knowledge that we seek. The post enlightenment paradigm has the disciple surpassing the guru as he has more information and, according to the theory of evolution, is more evolved.
Rick Bonin
23 Jan 2014
Hello everyone. I did indeed attend today’s class even though my presence was not apparent. What stood out for me was the Baba Ji’s mention of the Western bias towards an evolutionary view of civilization as opposed to the Indian view which is essentially devolutionary. I’m struck by how we reflexively assume that evolution is self evident and beneficial. While technology and the rights of the individual may have evolved since Descartes, has personal fulfillment followed a similar trajectory? One could argue that, at least recently, fulfillment has devolved as time marches on. While the few hundred years since Descartes is hardly a yuga this devolution would seem to follow the Indian model. While I certainly have benefited from the evolution of technology and the associated comforts it is revealing to be reminded that the assumptions that are attached with this life style are not absolute or even beneficial when examining other cultures.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
23 Jan 2014
I think you got me right, Rick, in that I’m not suggesting that “devolution” is the nature of the world, but that we unquestioningly assume evolution IS the nature of the world.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
29 Jan 2014
Babaji,
I just finished listening to last weeks Master Class and I found it totally fascinating. Before the class I believed I was reasonably aware of my assumptions and baggage but during and after the lecture I could see very clearly this is not the case at all. I also noticed how much I (my ego?) wants to put moral assumptions on everything and that I am constantly thinking about hypothetical situations. For instance when Babaji talked about Vivekananda I immediately started thinking about what would have happened to India if he had not addressed the west in the way he did. But I understand more and more that the hypothetical thinking is perhaps some kind of trap. Or at least that is my current assumption.
Kurt Bruder
23 Jan 2014
Babaji: The “table” upon which you are asking us to place our post-Enlightenment assumptions is already getting pretty full! 😉
I will run the risk of transparency and say that I’m uncomfortable with any approach to knowledge claims that has “because our Guru or Scripture says so” (or some similar appeal to tradition or authority) as the warrant for acceptance.
While that conservative approach can support replication (a necessity for community and continuity), where it contradicts other evidence, it tends to foster intellectual dishonesty. It can also impede the discovery of knowledge, in as much as the answers are already given, and departures from established views are subject to negative social sanction.
Criteria for valid knowledge should surely include the testimony of those with direct experience in the relevant domain of activity and/or insight (my gloss on the record of Oral Tradition), but other “tests” are important–and many are part and parcel of the Scientific Method (arguably, the fruit of the Enlightenment).
I’m very desirous to learn what ancient practitioners of Sacred Speech thought about–and, especially, did with–the Object of their investigations. Where I imagine that my “red lights will start flashing” is the point at which someone asks me to accept any proposition without other kinds of evidence in addition to the tenacity and continuity of a given community’s understanding.
Jai Ma!
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
23 Jan 2014
Kailash, what I am asking you to do at this point is to identify assumptions that are largely derived from post-enlightenment thinking. By putting them “on the table” I’m not implying that we abandon them, but examine them carefully, so that when we attempt to understand the “other” (whether the “other” is another culture, religion, or even gender) we may be aware of our biases that may unduly influence us in that attempt.
The table is far from full.
We are not yet attempting to validate any “knowledge,” but, in our inquiry, we must first attempt to know “who’s asking the question?”
Being uncomfortable with claims of tradition or authority as an approach to knowledge is what I am highlighting when I make the call to identify our assumptions, as clearly modern Western discourse makes its claims in a way not dissimilar to a “scripture” (which I take as “doctrine”) or guru.
Michelle Synnestvedt
23 Jan 2014
I see that through this course….unless we know what structures we are seeing the world through, we are completely bound/blinded by them..we will be compelled to react in habitual ways that dictate the choices we make under the illusion of freedom. For clarity sake, we need to know what ‘chariot’/ vehicle we are riding in..’who’ is driving the horses and …who the horses are and ‘where’ they are headed for that matter. If “in the end”…we come back to a similar perspective of how we view the world, at least it will be broader. I have always felt that the path of self inquiry is a path of emptying out…we hopefully will be able to get a clearer picture of how and why we see the world the way we do, and from this clarity be able to make more informed/skillful choices. I am thrilled to throw all these ideologies and assumptions on the table..and I see that this process is on-going._
Scott Marmorstein
23 Jan 2014
Right, either way, someone or something attempts to point out that it knows more than or has the distinct advantage of greater insight into X than another.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
23 Jan 2014
Scott, these may be identified as “power struggles” in conceptual space.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
23 Jan 2014
Thank you, Michelle. But lets not fool ourselves that we abandon our ideologies or assumptions. Let’s hold on to them for a while, if only so we may get to know them very well!
Scott Marmorstein
24 Jan 2014
Exactly. I notice power struggles at varying degrees and within different social contexts every single day.
Michelle Synnestvedt
24 Jan 2014
Baba Rampuri, When I say empty out I don’t mean get rid of~ I mean empty your “pockets” so to speak so you can SEE what it there. I don’t think we could ‘get rid’ of our conditioning..as you have said many times in reference to yourself…’you can take the boy out of the West but can’t take the West out of the boy’ :)_
Kurt Bruder
24 Jan 2014
Saying that the “table is already getting pretty full” was meant to be read as a tongue-in-cheek remark.
I’m very well aware of the assumptive ground from which I choose to interrogate reality, and its rootedness in rational and post-rational perspectives. I appreciate the bid to unconceal our “lenses,” and to have them occur as matters of choice rather than operate below the threshold of consciousness.
That said, I think there are good reasons to prefer certain methods of inquiry and interpretation over others, based on their goodness-of-fit, utility, heuristic power, and even beauty.
I hope to encounter knowledge in our conversations that far exceeds my present understanding, together with tools for sense-making that are empowering and illuminating.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
24 Jan 2014
Kurt Bruder and all….. In my own engagement and teaching of Sacred Speech, I see “free will” and “choice” as part of our post-enlightenment heritage, but not part of the traditional culture in which I gained my knowledge, so in my apprenticeship I was never in a position to choose among methodologies, nor my assumptive ground. There was no choice, only struggle.
I am not teaching theory, and I am attempting not to merely represent a knowledge to you in your terms. There’s the old Chinese warning to beware what you wish for in youth, for you may just very well get it in your old age. My assumption in this conversation is that all of you are willing to examine and suspend your “terms” or at least try, to attempt to arrive at a “revelation” of speech that is not constructed in your normal rational terms. I am not teaching method, as I also have not been taught method (in the formal sense), but taking you to the gates of my world, and giving you some handles with which you may proceed with your own explorations
3 Feb 2014
Jennifer
Descriptive rather than prescriptive
Dear Babaji,
I am getting more aware of yet another assumption and a kind of prejudice. In some ways, I think I saw myself and others as coming to you as a 1950’s US patient might go to a US doctor. I expected a kind of quick analysis of a situation, and then a prescription. I expected you just to tell us what to do. I wanted us to each get the magic pill. Finally, it is dawning on me that you are in the process of helping us see things/hear things. One of the phrases that often seemed to come up in your Facebook and other writing was. “descriptive rather than prescriptive.” That phrase irked me, because I felt that you were holding out on giving a solution, a solution that was clear to you. I am kind of embarrassed to admit all this. I couldn’t fully believe that you really saw value in describing rather than prescribing.
There are layers to things, and I can’t say, “EUREKA I understand now,” but I do think a light bulb was finally turned on in my head.
Thanks for hanging in there with me and all of us. Any degree to which I can see better or am open to seeing better I am grateful for
Jan Baggerud Larsen
3 Feb 2014
Wonderful class yesterday. I was going back and forth a bit to attend some family matters but I am catching up on the parts I missed. In am in total awe of how Babaji and Peter have been able to immerse themselves in their respective fields and traditions.
I get this very good yet strange feeling about being able to be a part of this class and community. I can’t really explain or express it in words but it feels a bit magical, whatever that might be. Sometimes when I contemplate some of the thing we are discussing it feels like the thoughts are slowing down and sometimes I get a “WOW” feeling combined with some kind of empty feeling or like the thoughts are “hanging” in the air.
Michelle Synnestvedt
3 Feb 2014
OM NAMO NARAYANA!
Baba Rampuri and all. I loved yesterdays class!
I am filled with so many questions and having a blast contemplating so much of what Peter offered.
Can Peter be added to our group? I would love to ask him a few questions.
Clearly we are barely scratching the surface on “sound”
I am aware that sound is connected to space /ether .. sound reveals the existence of space to our senses..when we hear sound we may wonder..what hold this sounds I am hearing/ and not hearing?
There is an intimate relationship between sound and space and I think that this intimacy was one thing Peter was pointing to yesterday.
The listener of music is just as important as the one whom music is flowing- be it by voice or instrument( because they are ALSO listening..to the CREATRIX perhaps on some level- the flow of inspiration and creativity)
There is this dance between the one who listens and the one who actively plays or makes sounds. If space and sound are dancing together then the listening and the player are dancing together..and the more ‘skilled’ and gifted in perception the listener is, the more nuance and subtlety is heard fro both the player and the audience.
I wonder, if it is as if the more skilled the player and the listener..the “subtext” of sounds..ie layers of the substratum are experienced.
There is something to be said about “being in the flow” when we recognize a virtuosity in a player..what makes them so? Certainly not just the notes they can play although that is part of it…it is as if all the years of playing or practice drops away and they are a container..they have gotten out of the way of this “divine inspiration” or the Gandharas that Peter mentioned.
Just some thoughts…..
Jennifer Harford
3 Feb 2014
Whisper Down the Lane* / Thinking that the Written Text Has Got to Contain the “Real Message”
Another prejudice I have may stem from playing “Whisper Down the Lane” as a child. If a message is told to one person, then to another, and then to another, and so on, it seems to me that the further down along the message chain, the last message would be invariably quite different than it was at first. It is hard for me to imagine that something vital and truthful could be passed along orally for thousands of years. I would think if I wanted to know what someone really said, it would need to have been recorded in some way. And yet, because of the kinds of conversations I have seen on Babaji’s Facebook page, I realize that texts are problematic too; they can have a kind of “dead” quality to them. _
Michelle Synnestvedt
3 Feb 2014
Jennifer I think that texts are very important..we aren’t saying that texts are BAD per se..just that the authority of speech has shifted greatly in the last few hundred years. I LOVE my books- they are like dear friends!
And yet there are assets and liabilities when those who are reading a book who have not been in proximity to the “live” commentary or at least in a “whisper down the lane” commentary that connects to the original conversation claim to “know” what the author was saying even better than the author himself.
The oral tradition is alive…so it should grow and shift as culture does..unlike some teachings /stories that stay exactly the same…like the Vedas that are still sung today by the brahmins.
Jan Baggerud Larsen
3 Feb 2014
I am fascinated by the oral traditions. I have some of the same prejudice as Jennifer mentioned but they seem be to changing after reading Babaji’s book and starting the MasterClass. Still I feel like I don’t want or need more information about the oral tradition. Not trying to understand it by reading about it. It is very tempting to go to some of the web sites about the oral traditions and read everything about but it feels like that will just give me more information and not knowledge.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
3 Feb 2014
Texts are not limited by what is printed or what is written. There exist very substantial texts, passed down orally for countless generations. Childrens’ rhymes. Grandmother’s stories. The Veda is text as well, long before anyone actually wrote it down.
We want to know how to consider a text, how to interpret a text, how to derive meaning and value from a text once it escapes the hand or voice of its author. And it is argued that once the text does leave its author, the author’s intentions become insignificant.
There is a certain self-reflexive element in Indian culture that has always intrigued me, and it seems that the tradition of “commentary” accounts for historical and cultural influences in the interpretation of the text which certainly must overwhelm the author’s intention, but continues to infuse new life in the text itself. Derrida goes so far as to proclaim the author “dead.”
Culture changes. Oral tradition is ALMOST anachronistic, but one of the very few spaces in which “oral tradition” still continues, at least on crutches, is music. Many musicians learn their art by hanging out with and playing with more accomplished musicians, and learn the “tricks and licks of the trade” from their “masters.” At least when I was growing up in the 50’s and 60’s. I imagine all the music theory one can learn from books aren’t really very much help in captivating an audience with musical virtuosity.
I can only consider myself quite lucky to have seen and lived amongst an oral tradition in its twilight. But, yes, among Brahmins who perform the vedic rities, the oral tradition continues, despite the fact that many of them are now on Facebook. The less abstract, and the more historical and local a text is, the more sustainability it also demonstrates in terms of its lesser susceptibility to knowledge-killing interpretation, as other texts experience in their re-birthing processes.
Hari Karam Singh
5 Feb 2014
Some notes from the last class:
Assumed paradigms we’ve looked at (Babaji made a nice list):
– knowledge coming mainly from books and the belief that this makes it inherently valid (contradicted by Babaji’s experience at Berkeley versus the history told by his Naga Babas gurus)
– the Natural Science, originating belief that rationality is the only form of knowledge acquisition
– the linear constant evolution of life
– mysticism, spirituality, religion as an experience
– the everything-is-a-machine concept
Babaji spoke about his year at Berkeley after 4 years in India and his desire to understand what he was learning and how upon returning his gurus hadn’t heard of many of the things that they taught “e.g. The Aryan invasion”. He spoke of his plight to resolve this paradox and how it the basis for this part of the course.
Peter Pannke spoke of the many attributes of sound in addition to or beyond physical vibration such as subtle angles of delivery, karma creating or liberating and how these are independent of each other and of the physical sound attributes. Also unheard sound..
He also spoke of what we mean by “music” and of three forms of music:
– Octave plus overtones – modern, traditional. And how at first they thought a root + fifth, for instance, was an entirely different tone. Then one day Pythagoras heard the hammers in the market blending together and realised they could be combined
– Sound which varies around a root note/octave, e.g. Didgeridoo, aboriginal music, Tibetan chant and instruments
– Sound of the celestial musicians, tones run up and down between two octaves (??).
– (anyone remember the names of these?)
P.S. By the way, I do these recaps mainly for my own benefit and the last thing I want to do, in this course especially, is to add yet another layer of interpretation, so please do say if you’d prefer I kept them private. Otherwise please do make corrections or additions where lacking…
Peter also said that he believed that there was no inherently sacred music but that the sacredness was in the relation the listener makes with it.
Baba Rampuri
5 Feb 2014
“Therefore we will not listen to the source itself in order to learn what it is or what it means, but rather to the turns of speech, the allegories, figures, metaphors, as you will, into which the source has deviated, in order to lose it or rediscover it—which always amounts to the same.”
― Jacques Derrida
Comments on Edward Said
Hari Karam Singh
6 Feb 2014
I know the point of reading Orientalism is not to agree or disagree, but 1/3 of the way through, I’m struck by how aligned his principles are with what we’ve been discussing. He talks about reductionism caused by inappropriate generalisation, romanticised misunderstandings which come from book learning divorced from context, blind acceptance of theories based on previous cultural bias… I’m curious as to what the criticism are of his work?
Kurt Bruder
6 Feb 2014
I had the good fortune to encounter Said in grad school, and he helped me grasp the darker side of “scholarship”–particularly that of generating knowledge in order to control and exploit the Other.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
6 Feb 2014
The vast majority of criticism that Said faced was political in nature and hardly needs to be considered. There was also some criticism from some intellectuals and even post colonial thinkers (Homi Bhaba for one) that he 1) over homogenized the “orient”, 2) overstated the passivity of ‘Orientals”, and 3) failed to take into account orientalism used by “natives” to undermine the colonial enterprise (Vivekananda for one). But these are very minor points that only warrant discussion among those deeply involved in theory.
Jennifer Harford
7 Feb 2014
Babaji, I am aware of an overwhelming sense of gratitude for yesterday’s class. I am grateful not only that I am being exposed to something so profoundly and meaningfully different but also that it is being broken down for me in such a way as I may be able to experience it myself. And I am especially grateful that the experience of attending classes with you and the whole group will make my life and all our lives only richer and deeper. Thank you.
It is doing me a lot of good to replay the classes. Thanks also for the videos. The ideas are so new to me.
Babaji, I do hope you will consider an audio book or a dvd in addition to the text of your book on Sacred Speech, It is helpful to hear your voice.
Paninian Approach to Speech vs. Body as Machine
Kurt Bruder
6 Feb 2014
Regarding the distinction between consonants and vowels, both are “struck,” though in slightly different sites in the “damaru” of our vocal apparatus, and at different speed (frequency). The folds of our vocal chords vibrate against one another as breath passes over (between) them; they function like a reed in a woodwind instrument. The “touching” is relatively rapid and iterative through out the passage of breath–typically (though not necessarily) interspersed with modifications realized in the remainder of the vocal apparatus.
Jai Ma!
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
6 Feb 2014
Let’s not be too informed by the metaphor of the “body as a machine.” I want to be aware of our modern thinking of speech as a machine that turns thoughts into sounds for the purpose of communication. Just for a moment, let’s consider a mindset in which the machine and the “production” of an industrial age is but a future dream. In this mindset, things like vowels and consonants are but marks on the surface of the world that point to hidden relationships, analogs of other things, whose relationships are more clear. “Sparsha” or “touch”, in this case, striking, or lack thereof, is noted, not for its process in the production of sound, but for the noticeable effort of the speaker distinguishing a “stillness” and a “movement,” not just in speech, but in the nature of the world, a relationship between subject, the knower, and object, the known.
In this mindset, the consonant cannot manifest without its union with a vowel. It is confusing at times for alphabet addicts, for in the Indian languages, the NAME of a syllable is its PRONUNCIATION, its sound. Consonants cannot even be named without the addition of a vowel.
In English, we call the letter “t”, “tee”, but it’s pronunciation is always accompanied by one of the vowels, otherwise we can’t pronounce it, only we can name it as “tee”, but in Indian languages there is the syllable “ta”, pronounced and named as “ta.” It’s the already existing vowel “a” pronounced like in “cut, or “but,” that allows “ta” to manifest. Consonants are called “vyanjans” “manifestors” as their strikings make them known when followed by or following a self evident vowel.
Kurt Bruder
6 Feb 2014
I understand and appreciate the distinction you’re making Babaji. I suppose that it was the distinction (in the wisdom literature itself) between a “struck” and “unstuck” sound that I wanted to emphasize. All vocalisation involves “touching”, but the kinds and locations of the touch vary.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
6 Feb 2014
There is an irony which is one of my challenges in teaching this: I am using the model of Paninian tradition, which is my model as well, and yet we want an application that goes beyond Sanskrit. There are short sutras which, as Peter commented, take a year of contemplation, and sometimes years for understanding that I am attempting to gloss in an hour or less. So we are not examining all the ways of speech, but a Paninian approach that follows certain analogies, which we will seek to understand.
Jennifer Harford
7 Feb 2014
Babaji, when you bring up sense organs and the elements, you didn’t mention the sense organ skin, touch or the element air. Are these three linked? You did bring up these:
nose-earth-smell
toungue-water-taste
eyes-fire-light
ears-space-sound or hearing_
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
9 Feb 2014
skin -air -feeling/touch
Jan Baggerud Larsen
13 Feb 2014
I noticed that some of the questions I had before a class suddenly didn’t feel important as the class progressed or that they already got answered in the class. Also a few times I had the feeling of the question slowly disappearing as I was listening.
Jennifer Harford
14 Feb 2014
It can be hard for me to have an open mind even when I desire it. When I was at the Kumbha Mela on one of the bath days, an Indian couple next to me asked me to take a picture of them. I started to take a picture, and the man said, “No, please take a photo with the crowd behind.” Millions of people were all around me, and I almost said, for the moment, “What crowd?” I oddly enough could not see the crowd until I was asked to take a picture of it. I was overwhelmed and my mind would not let me see what was in front of me. It is a strange predicament. I don’t know what I don’t see, because I don’t see it._
Rick Bonin
14 Feb 2014
An open mind is simply (perhaps not so simple to practice) taking in what’s offered without analyzing or judging it. Becoming aware of how we filter things through our conceptual framework and then define those things in light of that bias is what our sessions to this point have been largely about. We first need to be made aware of these tendencies before we can attempt to override them.
8 Feb 2014
It is occurring to me rather late that I was confused about the meaning of “Authority.” I was confusing it with conventional power, and like “who is it that you have to obey.” So, to me, the authority in the room might be the police officer, particularly if he is not only wearing a badge but also holding a gun. When I equate “authority” more with “knowledge” and the power that knowledge provides, then the question of “where does the authority lie, in the text or in the voice, “ is a question that makes more sense to me. To have a sense of knowledge being so alive, so active, so present in the moment, is very exciting.
There is, at the same time, as side of me that wants to think of knowledge as static, something that can be contained on a piece of paper, and unchanging. But at the same time, that feels too binding, and makes knowledge seem almost useless. Of course, it is limited by the time, place and circumstances in which it was written. I also appreciate that it isn’t an arbitrary person who has the authority. If I were to pick up one of the Patanjali’s translations, and start to talk about him and his work as if I knew something about them, well, it would be just ridiculous. A Tradition that can keep Knowledge and Authority alive is amazing. to me, yet s side of me wonders, can it really be done? Can the yogis keep getting it fresh and right for thousands of years? I am not aware of experiencing anything like that in my own life. Because not all evolution is forward moving, it seems to me to trust something like an oral tradition could be potentially very dangerous. But then, any form of trust is potentially very dangerous. But I hear in your voice a sense that the Oral Tradition works, so I want to keep being open and to see if I feel this working for myself. Am I right in thinking that we are getting some exposure to the Oral Tradition, Babaji, during the Masterclass, in that we are hearing your voice and learning from it in present-time? I realize it is not the hot breath of the guru to his or her young disciples, but is it a version of the Oral Tradition?
Kurt Bruder
8 Feb 2014
I’m used to assessing the relative merits of a given knowledge claim on the basis of superior evidence and organization of argument.
So an appeal to oral tradition is not persuasive simply because the idea or practice has been “passed down,” or because it comes (or is reputed to come) from an attractive historical figure or lineage. I’m quite contented to examine any and all assumptions (even those governing Western rationality), recognizing the way the “taken for grated” can bias one’s judgment.
But I want to feel honest about subscribing to this or that notion or method, so I require grounds for accepting a knowledge claim that are sufficient and coherent with those applied in similar contexts. I’ve had lots of experience with privileging particular teachers, texts, traditions, and so forth, and ended up accepting concepts offensive to reason and common sense.
I hope to discuss ways of distinguish valid knowledge that aren’t limited to suggestion that revered figures in a now heavily mythologized past received them from a Divine Source, then passed them down in unbroken continuity of essential meaning while always remaining dynamically responsive to changing circumstances.
Baba Rampuri
I think these are things we should discuss at our next webinar. These are very important points there.
“it seems to me to trust something like an oral tradition could be potentially very dangerous” wrote Jennifer.
It IS very dangerous. I would recommend not to trust it. In the frontispiece of my book I quoted Avadhut Gita, “It is only by the grace of God that one yearns for union with Him, and escapes serious danger.” All ideas are dangerous, the safer ideas are perhaps even more dangerous, almost guaranteed failure. All faith is dangerous. But to trust an abstract, which in your case is an “oral tradition”, is like trusting something that doesn’t exist, at least doesn’t exist the way you imagine it to exist.
We are much more interested in deconstructing ideologies and beliefs rather than acquiring new ones. By listening to my voice does not put you in an oral tradition, even if my voice is largely informed by an oral tradition.
The oral tradition doesn’t have a doctrine or a version, it’s a means transporting culture, learning, knowledge, and information through time, but generally not geography. It’s transmission takes place in intimacy, it’s not something to subscribe to or believe in.
What’s very striking about oral tradition for the very few of us “moderns” or even “post-moderns” who have had a substantial engagement, is there are really different things happening, that cause us to have greater critical thinking about ourselves.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
12 Feb 2014
This is exactly the kind of comment I am looking for, as it tells the storyteller about his audience, and allows him to engage on a deeper level. I think we should discuss this and other foundational issues.
Rick Bonin
13 Feb 2014
In light of Baba Ji’s “exhortation” at the beginning of today’s session I’ll mention that I haven’t commented so far for a couple reasons. One is that when some comment has come to mind, someone else seems to cover the topic in short order. But more importantly my intent is to maintain an open mind. For me that means to absorb what’s being offered rather than questioning it. The focus of the conversation, so far, is not something new to me. It is a topic we have explored for several years almost from my first conversations with Baba Ji.
Perhaps more importantly, more than an open mind my primary interest here is to expand my perspective beyond the Western scientific paradigm that I have found myself immersed in since birth. In that light it’s my intention to maintain a beginner’s mind. This will not be difficult since the upcoming subject matter is something I know nothing about. Perhaps when we get to the other side of the Sanskrit section I might have something worthwhile to say but for now it seems watching the show seems more beneficial.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
Jan Baggerud Larsen A text is not necessarily “a book,” and in an oral tradition, a text’s role is only a part of that tradition, one of its bodily limbs. In my engagement with an oral tradition over 45 years, I have seen very few written or printed texts, the main one being “pushpanjalis” or privately published collections of stotras and shlokas used for aratis, bhajans, and common pujas. There are various versions available (privately) and are often rife with mistakes. They reference other texts, such as Vedas, Upanishads, Shankara, etc., texts that have never been seen in their totality or completion in a written form by most of us in the tradition of 52 lineages. Some of my gurus were able to “pull” whole sections of texts “from the sky” as it were, as if it were only coming from their memories. Whereas the mantras themselves, the sacred articulations, whose meanings must be considered in a whole different way than either common speech, or even symbolical or allegorical speech, remain fixed, but any doctrine or even ritual lays squarely in local mouths, in our case the discourse among the current generation of gurus in a particular tradition, only very weakly argued from the point of view of interpreting a particular text.
I am saying that the text is not nearly as important to the oral tradition as to the literate tradition. The text is not the guru, nor vice versa.
Largely because of my birth and upbringing in the West, I, also, have a burning curiosity for the text, and so, I have also spent my life searching for texts and reading them. I have also studied printed texts with traditional pandits in Sanskrit and Hindi in India, and I can tell you that even the pandits didn’t hold the text in the esteem that people in the West, or Western influenced people do. And this is regarding relevant, authentic, texts in Sanskrit. And even they would have the odd “mistake” – at least according to a reasonable interpretation of Panini’s “rules of grammar.”
I am certainly delighted, stimulated, and entertained by picking and choosing among a consumer’s paradise of available published texts, and reading the result of someone’s hard, often very disciplined work. It also makes it possible to be eclectic and innovative in one’s approach and work.
So we must be aware of that, and be able to identify it when we see it. And when we do, we must then be able to distinguish between the singer and the song.
Shiva and Shakti
21 Feb 2014
Hi Babaji, I was thinking about the lovely story. Shiva wanting to know himself, and so he looked in a mirror. And when he looked in the mirror he saw Shakti. Upon seeing Shakti, he said, “ahhh.” It is a story that brings a smile. I was wonder, though, why, when he looked in the mirror, he saw Shakti and not Shiva.
21 Feb 2014
Shiva is the permanent Subject, the Observer; Shakti is the always-changing Object, that which is Observed. The two together represent the totality of conscious experience: the meeting of Seer and Seen, Knower and Known, Lover and Beloved.
Michelle Synnestvedt
21 Feb 2014
I Like to remember in the story that Shiva was the UNMANIFEST…(before form) and because of the kamabija or seed of desire to know himself, he saw his POWER to become ALL or ANY form- his power to manifest-(which is KNOWN as Shakti- his beloved.) They are alway inseparable ~like two sides of the same coin.
Just as we are forms of manifestation( Shakti), we NEED this FORM in order to experience that which is formless (Shiva) and can be known in the space between thought, or at the end of the breath- in that space there is a doorway to ” no-thing-ness” or Shiva.
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
24 Feb 2014
Good explanation, but in the context of our conversation, I’d like to point out a few things.
Shiva IS (not WAS) the unmanifest. This is not to sing His praises, but introducing “was” indicates time, finality, and insinuates “origins” or “genesis.”
“Formless” (not – before form), again is not locking this into a measurement of time or assumptions of genesis.
“… in order to experience that which is formless…” I think we must be more cautious the way we privilege experience – as it is much too easy to have an experience that conforms to our ideology. Theresa of Avila did not have darshan of Hanuman Ji, after all.
Hari Karam Singh
27 Feb 2014
Shiva Sutras on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Sutras_
Jennifer Harford
27 Feb 2014
Thanks, Hari!
Kurt Bruder
27 Feb 2014
Nice find. Well done, my friend.
Michelle Synnestvedt
27 Feb 2014
Wow looks like you covered a lot today…can’t wait to catch up!
Jennifer Harford
26 Feb 2014
Thank you for the Masterclass videos, Babaji. I am finding it very helpful to play the Masterclass 6 video a few times. It is so very rich
Michelle Synnestvedt
21 Feb 2014
I wanted to offer the names of the 5 positions.. Babaji may want to correct this and I respect that this is not a matter of memorization..but rather an invitation for us to FEEL the sounds at their sacred temples in the mouth as we sound the syllables…
there was a question of position 2 and 3.
Position 1= throat or guttural
position 2 is palatal it marks the beginning of the hard pallet,
position 3 is retroflexive or cerebral
position 4 is teeth or dental
position 5 is lips /labial
Baba Rampuri
MODERATOR
24 Feb 2014
Yes, that’s absolutely correct.
position 1 – “Ka” varga – “kanthya”
position 2 – “Cha” varga – “talavya”
position 3 – “Ta” (retroflex) varga – “murdhanya”
position 4 – “Ta” (dental) varga – “dantya”
position 5 – “Pa” varga – “osthya”_
Jennifer Harford
25 Feb 2014
Does “kanthya” mean throat, “talavya” mean “hard pallet” (also, what is “hard pallet”), “murdhanya” mean ” retroflex (what does “retroflex” mean?), and “osthya” mean lips?
Jennifer Harford
26 Feb 2014
Or may I just could think “back of the throat”, “a little higher than the back of the throat,” “top of the mouth”, “at the teeth,” and “on or at the lips” respectively?
