Re: Is the Swastika evidence of a common origin?
Steve Pridgeon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:15:59 -0800
Gerry Palo said:
}In article <email@example.com>,
}Steve Pridgeon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
}> Gerry Palo said:
}>}In article <email@example.com>,
}>}Steve Pridgeon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
}>}> Dan Clore said:
}>}>}In some traditions the one way is good and the other bad. The pattern
}>}>}shows up all over the place: in Native American traditions, Hindu,
}>}>}Buddhist (a sign of a Buddha is being born with the chest hair arranged
}>}>}as a swastika)...
}>}>How much chest hair is the average Bhuddist born with?
}>}He did not say Buddhist but Buddha. This is an imaginative picture meant
}>Yes. I assumed that any budding Buddha would be born among Buddhists. The
}>fact that the layout, rather than the quantity, of chest hair at birth is
}>considered diagnostic does tend to imply that the presence of natal chest
}>hair is, in itself, unremarkable.
}Well, in fact Prince Siddharta was born among Hindus in India. There were
}no Buddhists then. Let the picture imply to you what it will. You will
}have to learn about these things on another, I would say much longer, path.
So, Master, if I don't learn to snatch the pebble from your hand this
time around, I have to return as an invertebrate, say an MLMer or a
}>}to convey non-material truth through symbolic representation. His being
}>Non-material truth? Truth that isn't?
}As I said, if you are so bound to matter as the only form of reality,
}you have a long way to go. There is not much I can say to you.
To believe in something that neither our senses nor our instruments are
equipped to perceive is self-delusion, by definition. Why should I
believe the claim of another human to special knowledge?
}>}born with hair indicates his coming into the world with a certain degree
}>}of high development, not an ordinary human being. The arrangement into the
}>}swastika indicates possibly a specific kind of clairvoyant faculty,
}>}connected with the so-called lotus blossoms. It could have other meanings
}>}The Philistine needs to learn that there are different kinds of literal
}>}truth than those that apply only to gross matter. Pictures of this kind
}>}are meant to enlighten just such folks, all of us really, if they will
}>}only open their eyes and minds to new possibilities.
}>So is the chest hair really there, or do you just have to believe in it?
}Are these the only possibilities you can think of? (From your remarks so
}far, I am afraid they are.) Didn't you ever read about symbolism in one of
}your school classes, perhaps in an art course? The artist's arrangement
}of the hair would be considered a symbolic gesture to indicate a spiritual
}truth in pictorial form. We are talking here about the meaning of the
}hooked cross beyond its use by the Nazis. Why is this so difficult for
}you to understand?
The original post did not refer to symbolic representation of an infant
buddha with a hairy pectoral swastika (akin to the Christian artist's
halo), but made a statement referring to its literal presence.
is .sig has been modified. It has been reformatted to fit your scre