Thank-you very much for forwarding my posting to Tom in Germany and involving him also in the discussion. I wish more Germans would become members of the agamicpsychology egroups and participate in the discussions. Hermeneutics holds a central place in German culture and I learned enormously from Dilthy Heidegger Gadamer Habermas and a host of others and who are all Germans. It is through understanding them and contrasting with them that I rediscovered the Pedadogic Hermeneutics that agitates the Dravidian Mind and makes it quite distinct and unique in the world. Now I am responding to Tom by interweaving my comments within his .
At 12:13 AM 14-08-99 PDT, you wrote:
>I copied your last message to Tom for his reaction. Hope you will not object. Anyway you may be interested in his response which follows:
>Re agamic psychology discussion (received only today) I think: mind
sets, boxes, too narrow specialisms = negative, partly result of needs
of advanced capitalist production processes ( individualism, competition
etc). Old idea of "renaissance man" or more recent interdisciplinary.
Yes, the mind builds many citadels of its own unable to face and live the reality that ultimately it is NOTHING; that the final GROUND is NOTHINGNESS, a sheer EMPTINESS of mental contents. The West has not thought of this yet and it remains to this day something foreign. So this notion should not be compared with that of "renaissance man". The mind is located in structures that are both HORIZONTAL and VERTICAL. The mind can spread horizontally and also ascend vertically. It is the ascending that is difficult for it involves the destruction of the present and which is painful. It requires DISSOLVING the various identities that provide us with securities of various kinds in terms of group dynamics of variuos sorts. But we must, having lived it, absolve it from within and locate ourselves at a higher location, world , structure etc. Only then we DEVELOP or EVOLE and become a fully saturated individual at the end of this ascendance. This ascendance is the MEANING of existence.
>Agree, religion = partly attempt to understand mysteries of life, same
as sciences (incl psychology), even art = looking at life from different
The concern of religion, though it involves
understanding the mysteries of life etc and hence Hermeneutical, is more
than that. It is concerned with Being with BEING, being in an inseparable
indissolvable oneness with BEING, that ordinary individuals call GOD. This
requires, having gainined understandings also dissolving them for
unless one dissolves all other ties, it is impossible to be ONE-WITH-BEING.
As long as we remain tied to the world we cannot tie ourselves to
>Archetypes idea seems to be pure Plato, though same may have existed
earlier in India, Persia etc. (Plato's archetypes = Grundnorms/ perfect
ideas, of which the earthly manifestations = imperfect copies).
I am using the term in the Jungian sense of Imago Dei and which I equate with the Muurththi, a mnaifestational form of BEING, the Absolute. As such there is only partial similarities with Platonic Forms or Ideas. The archetypes in my view are patterns of Mantra Syllables very much like the graphical presetations in computer science now. Thirumuular says of them as manthirath thirumeeni, a concept totally foreign to the West to this day. Mantrayana is the theoretical aspect of pedagogic hermeneutics. There is nothing perfect or imperfect about archetypes: they are either lower of higher and they take POSSESSION of individuals and standing as the self itself, determines their personality, what kind of person they are. And Access Tests can help us to identify these and therefore they are TRUTHS emprically ascertainable.
>Loganathan WRONG re "living presence of God" as believed by Buddhists
& Muslims. Buddhists don't believe in God; Muslims' idea of God's
too elevated, they'd consider it blasphemous to suggest God lived in them.
However, Catholics have "archetypes", perhaps.
Please don't rush to conclusions about me just after reading a single posting and don't underestimate my scholarship and that too about Buddhism. You see the Buddhism you talk about is Hinayana Buddhism. But there is also the Mahayana veriety of it credited to Nagarjuna and Tantric Buddhism that developed in the Tamil country and later spread all over the world displacing the earlier verieties. In Indonesia it helped to evolve the Saivite Buddhism and about which there are many books. The earliest text in Tantric Buddhism appears to be MaNimEkalai in Tamil possibly belonging to the 5th Cent AD and there, many Buddhist archetypes are mentioned including Manimekala Theyvam. In Tantric Buddhism, there are MORE archetypes than in Hinduism and preChristian religions of the Greeks and Romans
Now about Muslims I will be more cautiuos and
would like a Muslim scholar to respond. But my view is this. In an abstract
sense they too subscribe to the idea of PRESENTATION of BEING though purely
as that which can be the TOTALLY ABOVE and beyond any lower archetypal
forms or imago Dei. But this way of ENTERING UNDERSTANDING though peculiar,
is nevertheless a presentation for UNLESS HE PRESENTS HIMSELF we
can NEVER understand his presence at all. Within Semitic tradition this
is a revolution but not in Saivism. India has seen the notion of
NOTHINGNESS, SUNYATA since the days of Buddha and Saivism has fully accomodated
itself towards this and evolved beyond it.
>Nice idea that we're all the same/ religions all the same, inclusivity
etc. Also that God is one, but His presence differs from religion to religion.
However, religions do differ. Perhaps the reason's less that there's "aNu"
(=devil ??) more that the powerful divide up the terrain (into states/
tribes/ religions?) to each have their own slice of power; as large as
However, being open/inclusive probably does lead to less anxiety, asclaimed.
Great Tom, you are coming closer to my
views. Now if you read Metaphysica Universalis of Meykandar, you will understand
better the notion : all of us the same religious wise but something that
we understand only when we grasp the UNDERSTANDING that I call Metaphysica