SY lehtiotsikoissa!

Ai kaunis nainen meikeissä ja minihameessa ei voi tajuta mitään henkisyydestä? Kiva varmaan tuomita toisia ulkonäön perusteella. Lukenut ilmiselvästi tajuaa kaiken henkisyydestä.

Tuomitsevuudesta, - jälleen kerran...

Sokrates ylisti kovastikin hetairoja. Samoin Jeesus; Maria Magdalenaa, samoin Kahlil Gibran, ja niin moni, jotka te HC-joogit tuomitsette itseänne alemmiksi; vähemmän valaistuneiksi. Michelangelo oli homoseksuaalinen. Blake moniavioinen.

Mutta: Jumaluus ei tuomitse ketään. Ihminen tuomitsee itse itsensä, sillä tuomiolla millä hän tuomitsee muita. Violet siteerasi äskettäin näitä Shri Matajin sanoja:

She (Shri Mataji) talked a lot about "dominating personalities", people who think they are controlling everything and feel
responsible all the time...how they hurt and torture others...and specifically about leaders in Sahaja Yoga who think they can tell
others what to do and make people afraid of them by saying that Mother has said this or Mother has said that and threatening to tell
Mother if the people do anything wrong.

Shri Mataji said She is never angry with us only sometimes for the "play" She appears angry
but that a Mother can never be angry...She only loves. She said these people who dominate others get some kind of cruel joy from treating others like this. And that some people are always in the front and She knows who they are...that they think they are important and must always be there...but really they are not so really happy people...that is why they do it.

She said that animals are aggressive to each other but that they have a hierarchy, a structure...it is not random cruelty...but that human beings can be cruel for no reason. She said some people think that to be a "leader" is to be something...they call Her and ask to be "leader", so what can She do.


Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi
Easter Puja, Istanbul 1998
(Australian Sahaja Newsletter - 25 April, 1998)

Kalki_Avatar kirjoitti:

Tuomitsevuudesta, - jälleen kerran...

Sokrates ylisti kovastikin hetairoja. Samoin Jeesus; Maria Magdalenaa, samoin Kahlil Gibran, ja niin moni, jotka te HC-joogit tuomitsette itseänne alemmiksi; vähemmän valaistuneiksi. Michelangelo oli homoseksuaalinen. Blake moniavioinen.

Mutta: Jumaluus ei tuomitse ketään. Ihminen tuomitsee itse itsensä, sillä tuomiolla millä hän tuomitsee muita. Violet siteerasi äskettäin näitä Shri Matajin sanoja:

She (Shri Mataji) talked a lot about "dominating personalities", people who think they are controlling everything and feel
responsible all the time...how they hurt and torture others...and specifically about leaders in Sahaja Yoga who think they can tell
others what to do and make people afraid of them by saying that Mother has said this or Mother has said that and threatening to tell
Mother if the people do anything wrong.

Shri Mataji said She is never angry with us only sometimes for the "play" She appears angry
but that a Mother can never be angry...She only loves. She said these people who dominate others get some kind of cruel joy from treating others like this. And that some people are always in the front and She knows who they are...that they think they are important and must always be there...but really they are not so really happy people...that is why they do it.

She said that animals are aggressive to each other but that they have a hierarchy, a structure...it is not random cruelty...but that human beings can be cruel for no reason. She said some people think that to be a "leader" is to be something...they call Her and ask to be "leader", so what can She do.


Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi
Easter Puja, Istanbul 1998
(Australian Sahaja Newsletter - 25 April, 1998)

Lue lisää

Keräilin tuossa tietoa Sokrateesta(artikkeli on englanniksi), viime keväänä. Teema oli "Socrates unhampered"; - tarkoituksenani löytää todellinen Sokrates, kaikkien niiden vähättelyjen ja sumeuden läpi, minkä tuossa toukokuussa olin näkevinäni niin monen sahaja yogin silmissä.

Koska eihän kukaan voi omistaa Sokratesta, tai Jeesusta; ja vielä vähemmän jos historian tiedot ovat kovin vähäiset, ja vaibressoneiden tuntoherkkyyskin ehkä on epävarmaa...

What is Socratean Love?
Saturday 05.07.05 [8:43 pm]

About Socrates:

- What does Xenophon has to say to us?

I promised to say something about Socrates, - something I see with the poets eye, maybe dilettante eye. I am not a university professor, nor a Socrates scholar, so i quote here someone wiser: “... I argue in the article that Xenophon ought to be taken more seriously as a source for Socrates, rather than being written off as a man too shallow to understand him. This is important because all agree that much of what Socrates says in Plato's brilliant Socratic dialogues isn't true to what the historical Socrates believed, but rather represents Plato's own later philosophy. If Xenophon can help fill in the gaps in Plato, or show us what in Plato is Plato and what Socrates, we will be able to gain a much fuller picture of Socrates, who is in so many ways the founding figure of the western philosophical tradition. “
(David Johnson, Assistant Professor, Classics Section: [link])

Wonder, what's about this? It's the Socretes relations with the hetairas that's caught my attention. Sure he also loved boys, and it might be interesting topic too, but I have no such tendency so I just skip it. In many ways Socrates was similar to Michelangelo. He was a passionate man, I guess; I am not sure, but somehow I think it comes close to what Jung wrote about Philomon and Salome in his autobiography. Sure, it has to do with rococo-atmosphere's which I've been fond of since childhood; the lush greenery of the park, and marble-like feminine beauty there.. approaching thunderstorm, smell of moist grass in the air; the Greek influence in European culture. Hamann, of the romantics.

This is so very old Greek and 18th century basic stuff, I wonder why it sounds so radical? Why are we people like monks and nuns in chastity belts, and why i so often feel my fellow human beings being but accusers inquisitors. Sure, life can be more beautiful than that. Also vibrationwise; there could be more, and yet more intense. But as said I am tired in dialogue; I rather just express myself, and what She has to say, whether the world likes it or not. Theodite was a hetaira, the same profession as Mary Magdalene is said to have. Strange coincidences. There was one biblical prophet, was it Amos? Whom did he marry?

Socrates and Theodote

"Why, in the course of defending Socrates, does Xenophon show him in conversation with the hetaira Theodote? Commentators ancient (Athenaeus 5.220ff.) and modern (Delatte, commentary on Memorabilia 3) have been troubled for Socrates’ morals. But Xenophon, a man of the world, meant the passage to be humorous (Breitenbach, RE) in a way more characteristic of his Symposium (see Huss, Symposium commentary and in AJP 1999). Is it anything more than that? The most telling part of the joke is that Theodote is in many ways comparable to Socrates, as both of them are in the same business: seduction (cf. Strauss, Xenophon’s Socrates, 85ff.). Of course Socrates’ seductions are intellectual, while Theodote’s have a healthy corporeal element. But I will suggest that the comparison with Theodote teaches us at least one thing we might not otherwise know: Socrates, like Theodote, makes sparing use of his charms in order to increase his companions’ desire for what he has to offer.

Neither Plato nor Xenophon ever explicitly compares Socrates to an hetaira, but both make free use of erotic language to describe Socrates, and speak in positive terms of the most famous hetaira of them all, Aspasia (Plato, Menexenus; Xenophon, Mem. 2.6.36, Oec. 3.14; cf. the Aspasia of Aeschines, with Ehlers 1966, 107ff.). Plato’s Socrates several times claims that his specialty is ta erotika (Symposium 177d; cf. Lysis 211e, Theages 123b). Xenophon’s Socrates is also erotic (Mem. 2.6.28, 4.1.2ff.), and in Xenophon’s Symposium he prides himself on his procuring or pimping (mastropeia:4.56ff.), and is said to ply the art not only for others but also on his own behalf (8.5).
In our passage Socrates charmingly strips Theodote of the various conceits that maintain her status as an hetaira rather than a porne, a common prostitute (cf. Davidson, Courtesans & Fishcakes, 120ff.). By the end of our passage it is not Socrates who wants to visit Theodote but Theodote who wants to visit Socrates: as Socrates elsewhere begins as the lover but becomes the beloved, so here he starts as the would-be customer but ends up as the hetaira, with his own suite of philai, his companions, whom he attracts with various love charms. Unlike Theodote, however, Socrates teaches his friends how to attract friends of their own: this is one important respect in which he is her superior.

Theodote consorts with those who persuade her to do so, and not, as a common prostitute, with anyone who can pay her price. Rather similarly Socrates, unlike the mercenary sophists, picks and chooses his companions (Mem 1.6.3). Theodote lives in high style but without traditional means of support: she relies on her philoi. Socrates, of course, prides himself on his poverty, but he too lacks any observable means of support, and can count upon the generosity of his friends (Oec. 2.8; Plato, Apology 38b).
Much of Socrates’ advice to Theodote closely parallels the advice he gave about winning friends to Critobulus earlier in the Memorabilia (2.6). But certain elements are most closely paralleled by Socrates’ own practice. Theodote should act differently in different cases: those who are full of themselves she should lock out, but those who truly care for her she should favor with all her soul. Above all, she must be careful to allow her friends to fulfill their desire for her only when their desires are at a peak. Socrates too went after different sorts of would-be companions through different means (Mem. 4.1.3-4.2.1), depending upon whether they prided themselves on their natures, wealth, or learning. His students needed to be good learners, but also to possess a great desire for learning (Mem. 4.1.2; Morrison 1994). In Memorabilia 4.2, Xenophon shows us Socrates’ intellectual seduction of Euthydemus; only after first teasing, enticing, and humiliating Euthydemus does Socrates reveal himself to him. He thus first ensures that Euthydemus has a deep and lasting desire for what he has to teach before he gives him the goods. Xenophon clearly enough shows that many questioned Socrates’ willingness to reveal himself by saying that Socrates did not hide what he thought (Mem. 4..4.1 cf. 4.2.40; 4.7.1; Plato, Symposium 215bff.).

When Socrates and his companions arrived, Theodote was revealing only as much as is fine to the painter doing her portrait. Does Xenophon do the same in his portrait of Socrates? The subtlety of his portrayal of Socrates’ encounter with Theodote ought to suggest to us that his Socrates may have hidden depths Xenophon thought it improper to call our attention to in an apologetic work. Thus Xenophon’s Socrates, who is so often thought to be the essence of banality, may have more to him than meets the eye. One such depth is Socrates’ hiddenness itself, which Xenophon does reveal, but only under the veil of Theodote. "

Morrison, Donald. 1994. “Xenophon’s Socrates as a Teacher.” 181-208 in The Socratic Movement, Paul A. Vander Waerdt, ed. Ithaca.

Ehlers, Barbara. 1966. Eine vorplatonische Deutung des Sokratischen Eros: Der Dialog Aspasia des Sokratikers Aischines. Zetemata 41. Munich.

(David M. Johnson Socrates and Theodote)

Toisten tuomitseminen ammatin/ulkonäön perusteella sitten on merkki henkisyydestä tai sen ymmärtämisestä?