(I’ve attempted to clean this up a bit! I wrote all this out on the fly when I was quite busy. So I had errors and abandoned thoughts galore. But hopefully this is closer to what I mean to say. I’m sure I’ll find something else I’m not thrilled about when I reread it tomorrow)

Not really quite sure where I’m going with this thought. But I’m working through “Victory of the Goddess” right now, and I’m just really struck by so many little details:

I guess one thing that resonated with me was when Acaryaji said that basically anything he says isn’t his own idea. That he’s repackaging things that were told from him… That having been said, it’s still flavored by how he correlates this information. I’m sure.

But that struck a chord with me! I didn’t ever actively set out to become interested in “Hinduism”. It just sort of happened! So in my attempts to make sense of the world, I’ve listened to a lot of folks. And my views at this point and musings are an amalgamation of these many streams, and how I’ve made sense of them in relation to one another. So I can imagine where he is coming from with that statement, especially when I read over his parampara and see how many people had a hand in making the man were learning from today.

I personally was influenced by Sufi Muslims, Kabbalists, Neoplatonists, Theosophical Society types and Jungians. And some less philosophical, “spooky” types that verge on the more occult and magickal. There was some Buddhists in there too, but that was always strangely inaccessible compared to Hinduism. I suppose because of the language barrier, India having been a British colony and the prevalence of English makes the materials a lot more accessible to a Westerner I feel like.

The ones I really liked were the Neoplatonists; Plotinus and Iamblichus/Proclus resonated with me. But there is no living practice to be had there, and we don’t know what Theurgy looked like.

So while I get why people like Gregory Shaw…Who I admire and have gleaned a lot from. Make the case of why they opted for Neoplatonism over just practicing Eastern religions, because it feels like LARPing to them.

I also quite like Hermeticism, as Wouter Hanegraff lays out… But it’s the same situation as with Neoplatonism: I feel like it ends up being a reconstruction project. One that I can’t personally justify…

Reason being, to piggyback off of one of Acaryaji’s points in the Q&A. This knowledge has been distilled and expanded upon for thousands of years, by thousands upon thousands of Masters. And no matter how well intentioned I maybe, or even insightful at times. I’m one guy! And I can’t make anything remotely close to what we are learning here with Vimarsha…

It’s unfortunate the way the world has unfolded has led to the loss of a great many esoteric traditions. But it is what it is.

I guess my thing is to counter Shaw’s point. Yes I’m not “Indian”, but if I truly say believe I am this underlying consciousness. Not this body-mind. And that the adjectives that describe this embodiment will not be reflected in “me” beyond the span of this life time. Then I think I can make the justification that I should just drop the cultural notions I’m clinging to, and say OK. This is the best thing I’ve found! And go with it unapologetically.

Rather than try to Frankenstein 18 unrelated parts into something to make a western “equivalent” to a Shaiva/Shakta system; and then still have to borrow concepts to fill in the gaps. As people in the West often do these days, by borrowing Chakras or whatever else.

So again I’ve said to myself, why don’t I just fall in line with these teachings? And be done with the nonsense, so I can focus on the point of why we are doing all this.

Anyway, we have drifted way off course now. I either expanded on that thought and why it spoke to me. Or that sudden jaunt off into why I’m interested in these teachings now after studying all that; just made things far more confusing. But either way I’m going to move on…

I guess my other take away is I really appreciate Acaryaji explaining how to read Puranic literature and the sort! Not that you necessarily need to do an exegesis of these texts… But it lets us interact with them more deeply, and apply it and reflect upon it. In the context of our own lives and existence.

This is just all very neat. And I’ve got so much from all this in a short period of time, and I can’t thank all of you enough for supporting this project. And Acaryaji for taking the time to do this. This has the potential to be something very special when it’s all said and done, it already is. But what’s exciting is how much more it can still be beyond that!

I also want to wrap up by saying, I’m not trying to make connections that don’t exist. Or import Western Mysticism or Occult practices into these teachings. I only bring up all this stuff because it’s all I’ve got to compare it to. Aside from my anecdotal life experiences.

So I say all this, feeling a bit like how Swami Sarvapriyananda when he was taking a course on Buddhism, I’m not sure if it was when he was going to Harvard Divinity school or what. I just remember hearing him say something to the effect of the instructor looked at him and told him, “Swami, leave your Advaita at the door!”.

Because that is a little bit of a trap. It wouldn’t be hard to bleed them together. But in the case of these teachings I feel like they stand alone well enough in their own context. They just need to be articuled well, and mold you into a mindset that’s conducive to all this. These points aren’t unreasonable, they are just quite foreign to how most of us live. So it takes a little priming and reconditioning.

Anyway I’m done rambling, when I likely would have better been served by keeping my mouth shut. But as a teacher told me once, albeit related to my career… “Tell me what you are thinking and why you’re doing what you’re doing. Because if I know why you are doing something, I can actually stand a chance of correcting what’s wrong”.