The Mayans as ancient world architects
the Hindu mythologies and epics always refer the monuments erected by 'Mayasur' or 'Maya' people.They always travelled the seas. The name suggests the similarity with ancient 'Mayans of Americas' who have shown a great advancements in architecture. It is possible that a global culture spanned the ancient world which was closer than we think, just like our modern world.
Last edited by bhamsen; 01-06-2011 at 11:53 PM.
Yes, it is possible and it is backed up by the fact that they kept in touch for millennia. In fact the Mayans might have originated in the Magan culture whose land is being inundated but an archaeological study did occur. It is situated just north of Ilavarta/Harappa. The concept of zero that was thought to be Babylonian in origin was developed by the Mayans and then appeared in India 150 years later. Academics can still be heard saying this doesn't prove contact. Then there is a dot on the back (I saw the vestiges on my last wife.) that disappears in the early 20s.It is on Asians and Mayans. Parchesi may have originated with the Mayans but there was so much contact with Egypt and other Europeans it is hard to say which was first. This travel has gone on for at least 100,000 years and certainly continuously for 25,000. Others I will cover in time include Valdivian ceramics of the Jomon Japanese or Ainu, we are touching a little on the rocks of Tiahuanaco - also like Yonaguni near Japan. There is a high probability that Buddhism came to Mayan lands according to Professor Scherz of the University of Wisconsin.
Yonaguni and the Bimini road are among many recent proofs discussed in this link.
And for those who value DNA (which is constantly proving my history) we have this.
I am certain that the Mayan people are descended from the Magan culture or Mohenjo Daro civilization of India. I have loads of proof from many hard disciplines or science. It is in the Mayan origin stories and it is in what follows - their religion or spirituality. The Mayans say "Do not put yourself in front of your Self."
Institute of Transpersonal Psychology
GLBP 9661: William James Elective:
Seminar for Year 5 Ph.D.
Students Term 4 | Apr 12 -May 28, 2010
Instructor: Mark Gonnerman, Ph.D.
Man may try to name love, showering upon it all the names at his command, and still he will involve himself in endless self-deceptions. If he possesses a grain of wisdom, he will lay down his arms and name the unknown, ignotum per ignotius, that is by the name of god.(Jung, 1989, p. 354) Final paper: The Stream of Self-concepts – antecedent and succession of William James’s Self-concept
Jung, in this quotation, reflected to the symbolic meaning of love that relates to the union of Psyche and Eros, which is the final mystery of life. He suggested that though we know much about the cosmos, more is left ”unknown” that we can only experience and try to name it ” by the more unknown.”
That is the quest of God for Jung, before him for William James and generations of thinkers, including one of the greatest one, Gautama Buddha. In this paper I am going to explore William James’s Self-concept, and show how it was built upon the Buddhist Anatta concept and later how it influenced Jung concepts about the Self. This comparison takes its resources primarily from Mark Gonnerman’s class, his lectures and class discussion as well as my weekly papers. Though it cannot be completed due to my limited possibilities for more comprehensive research, it may be a good start for approaching this rich topic.
Comparison of the Buddhist Anatta and William James’s Self-concept
Since psychology became interested in the Buddhist thought William James was frequently referenced as one of the first Western scientists who was informed by Buddhist concepts (Richardson, 2006).
Though we cannot find detailed accounts of James’ special interest in Buddhism and its direct influence on him, I would rather assume that his genius concluded similar wisdom like Gautama Buddha with 25 centuries later synchronistically, it is fact that he studied Hinduism and Buddhism to some extent. William kept up a certain amount of reading in religious studies. By the time of Minnie’s death, he knew something about the Upanishads.
Now, during 1870, he read several books on Buddhism and Hinduism, including Alabaster’s Modern Buddhist, volume one of Koeppen’s Religion des Buddha, Hippolyte Taine’s Le Buddhisme, Bastian’s Weltauffass der Buddhisten and Keshab Chunder Sen’s Brahma Somej: Four Lectures. (p. 126) James drew on Buddhist cosmology in framing his perceptual concept, ”stream of consciousness,” which is exactly the English translation of the Pali vinnana-sota.
In his Varieties of Religious Experience, James (2008) also promoted for modern psychology the functional value of meditation. He wrote: “This is the psychology everybody will be studying twenty-five years from now.” James (2008), considered himself as ignorant of Buddhism, in which – however - he found lots of common with his own principles. Without speculating about the level of Buddhist inspirations on James`s thinking, a general kinship between certain aspects of his philosophy and some of the Buddhist concepts are obvious and well discussed (Gombrich, 2004; Scott, 2000; Shaw, 1987).
One of these similarities is that neither James nor Buddha considers the self as a permanent entity or substance. Instead of this, they both agreed that the self must be a construct of processes including a momentary series of states of consciousness. The purpose of this paper is to draw parallels between James’s self-concept and the Buddhist anatta (Pali) by reviewing the Self, Chapter XII of Principles of Psychology of William James.
According to Mark Gonermann (class notes) anatta (Pali) is often translated as “no-self,” but this confuses many American Buddhists who have been schooled into a culture that emphasizes individual effort and achievement. Such an emphasis often overlooks the ways individuals exist only in relation to whatever else is around them in both the material and spiritual worlds. This kind of misunderstanding may also come not simply by translation. The anatta is a rare teaching of Buddha, less interpreted by him and a difficult issue for even the Buddhist scholars.
Here I will not go into details because this would go way beyond my competencies and also the scope of this paper. In short, anatta (Pali) or anatma (sanskrit) means literally that there is no Atman, which is the eternal, unchanging spiritual substance of Hindu philosophy. For the Hindu Vedanta, Atman is identical with Brahman, the Godhead, or the divine substance of the universe that is immanent and permeates every living being.
As many writers interpreted, in this teaching Buddha denied Atman as superpower (Self), which would flow through the individual (self). Here, he rather taught that the self is impermanent, a construct that is aggravated by the five skandhas (in Sanskrit: rupa, vedana, samjna, samskara, vijnana; in English: form, sensation, perception, habit, consciousness) in each individual. Basically, scholars consider the anatta, no Self (with capital) doctrine that is the major conceptual difference between the Buddhist and the Hindu religions."
Last edited by R_Baird; 06-23-2015 at 06:17 PM.
Tags for this Thread