[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: superstitions
-
From: vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan)
-
Date: 25 Oct 1994 05:15:46 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
-
References: <38ho6m$aes@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
In article <38ho5v$aak@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) writes:
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan (vidya@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>
> : Of course, Vivekananda was motivated by nationalistic and political
> : concerns. Many of his statements were calculated to rouse the social
and
> : political consciousness of his followers. At the time in which he
lived,
> : it was necessary not to escape from the harsh political realities of
> : British colonial rule. While this has nothing to do with his religious
> : philosophy, at least give him credit for what he deserves.
>
>
> Fine. I give him credit for being a great nationalistic and political
> leader. There is nothing wrong with this. What I dislike is when such
> people decide to do these things while making a show of being a Swami.
So what is your opinion about the Sants and the sannyasis, mostly
belonging to the dvaita sampradayas, who are so active in the VHP
nowadays? They are all trying to outdo one another in being
nationalistic/political leaders. Aren't they swamis for you? Of course I
do not expect you to be consistent, but at least try to be so, for your
own good. In any case you do not get to decide whether Vivekananda did or
did not make a show of being a swami.
>
> : Isn't it strange that you people who seemingly uphold the "reality" of
the
> : world preach an escapist surrender? On the other hand, it is the
> : advaitins like Vidyaranya and Vivekananda, (who supposedly say this
world
> : is mithya), who are the ones who have tried to change the political
> : scenarios of the times they lived in.
>
> And that too, despite their interesting theories on how the world isn't
> real, so what's the point? (sarcasm intended) Am I to assume that we
> should consider sadhus who take up material activities in this
supposedly
> unreal world to be more virtuous than those who stick with devotional
> service to Lord Krishna???
No. People like Vidyaranya have played the part of small instruments in
"dharma samsthApanam" that the Lord tells us about in the BG. At times of
crisis, it is necessary not just to sing the praises of the Lord, but also
do some disinterested action for the betterment of the dharma. That is
exactly what Vidyaranya tried to do with the establishment of the
Vijaynagar kingdom.
>
> As for my philosophical problem with meat-eating, (and my supposed
"pride"
> in trying to uphold a basic Vedic belief) go back and re-read my earlier
> posts rather than ask redundant questions which I already answered
before.
> I believe I pointed out BG 3.13, the fact that Krishna and his pure
devotees
> are all vegetarian, etc., and all that in response to people's queries
about
> why I should be concerned with a "Swami" who eats meat for pleasure
(mostly
> from people who say they aren't really defending Vivekananda...). If
this
> isn't good enough for you, then what is?
>
>
If you are convinced about your faith in Krishna and the BG, why do you
care about the non-vegetarians in the world? Surely, you cannot hope to
convert them by being so abrasive about your beliefs. Fine, Vivekananada
was not a devotee of Lord Krishna, because of his eating meat. So what?
Why do you care? Whoever asked you to be concerned with Vivekananda or
anyone else? Leave him alone and follow your own path. Or is the real
reason that you are jealous of the visibility of the Ramakrishna Mission?
S. Vidyasankar
