Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote

Re: superstitions

In article <37k0tr$p9t@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish  
Tandon) writes:
> susarla@growler.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) wrote:
> |> Chirag Randeria (esccd@daisy.egr.uh.edu) wrote:
> |> : hey people, Help me.  I'm trying to write a paper on superstitions  
> |> : hinduism, and in the Indian culture. I would appreciate it if  
anybody out 
> |> : there will mail me a list of superstitions that they are aware of.  
> |> 
> |> One interesting superstition prevalent in Hindu society is that God
> |> does not exist/or is not personal, and that you can "interpret"
> |> the scriptures any old way you want and still expect to achieve
> |> self-realization.
> |> 
> |> -- Krishna
> That's a good one. 
> I've been trying to fight it here for quite some time.
> Within the Vedic society, Shankaracharya has been one of the most  
> persons who promoted the impersonal (mayavadi) view, which was based  
> his obvious misinterpretation of the crystal clear Brahma-sutras.  
> the Brahma-sutras are so clear that they dont need any interpretation, 
> therefore any interpretation is misinterpretation. 
> Amazingly, this is the same Shankaracharya who said: 
> 	bhaja govindam bhaja gOvindam  bhaja gOvindam mUdamathE  
> 	"Worship  Govinda,  worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, foolish  
> and 
> 	"I desire to be in Vrindavana so that I may sit on the 
> 	 bank of Yamuna and pass each long day of my life in the 
> 	 twinkling of an eye, meditating on Lord Krishna." 
> 					--Abhilasastaka 

[Lot of other junk deleted]

You seem to know a lot about Sankaracharya that even his closest disciples  
Suresvara and Padmapada didn't. : -). 

Sankaracharya's interpretations of the Brahmasutras and the Upanishads are  
extremely orthodox. He does not interpret scriptures any which way he  
wants. Rather it is the dvaita and the achintya bheda-abheda schools that  
wilfully misinterpret the scriptures. And for the sake of polemics against  
Sankara's school, you intentionally misinterpret Sankara too. You quote  
Sankara whenever it suits you (read, whenever you want to demonstrate the  
orthodoxy of your views :-) :-)) and revile him at other times. I have  
already followed up to your articles on s.r.e. on the Chinmaya mission,  
but you haven't cared to respond to them. Maybe you have some answers  

How blind can one get? Mr. Know it all, please show me how the  
Brahmasutras are so crytal clear that they need no interpretation? Do you  
mean to say that Sankara, Ramanuja, Bhaskara, and even Madhva who  
interpreted these were all fools? Of course you will say that Sankara  
created all the misunderstanding, and the others after him only tried to  
clear up the mess he created. In that case, why do all of them also  
disagree among themselves? Your pride really carries you away. Try giving  
a literal translation of the Brahmasutras and see if you can understand  
them without any accompanying explanation. Remember, you are not to use  
any of the bhashyas available, so that you can be free of any  

Finally, see if you can convincingly prove how Sankara/advaita is wrong,  
without quoting the Padmapurana or some such other lame work. A few months  
ago, we had a major discussion on alt.hindu regarding advaita and  
visishtadvaita. I am sure you can get copies of all articles from the  
moderator. Convince yourself that you can explain away all the upanishadic  
passages quoted therein without recourse to advaita. 

Note that none of those passages talk of a personal God, let alone  
Krishna. Both the Personal and the Impersonal are parts of our traditions,  
and neither of them is a "superstition". It is surprising how people can  
still be like ostriches with their heads buried in sand. It is sad that  
you people would jump on some innocuous question about superstitions, to  
conduct your petty diatribe against advaita. 

S. Vidyasankar

Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.