[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions (1 of 2)
-
Subject: Re: superstitions (1 of 2)
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 20:43:34 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article #1456, vidya@cco.caltech.edu (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
|> In article <387n3m$jkg@ucunix.san.uc.edu> manish@cadence.com (Manish
|> Tandon) writes:
|> >
|> > Lord Krishna tells in the B.G. to use one's intelligence to discriminate
|> > between what is good and what is not good. I just try to follow it
|> > *without* (mis)interpretation.
|>
|> .....I'm sorry to be so rude, but I can't be any different to a person who
|> does not hesitate to call everybody in sight a moron and an idiot.
Vidya, don't try to get the sympathy vote.
You started the name calling by calling me 'blind', 'ostrich' etc.
I merely responded.
The date stamps on the articles tell the correct story.
Sorry to tell you that you can not fool the people on net so easily.
|> > Now you definitely seems to be knowing about Sankaracharya more than he
|> > knew about himself.
|>
|> ???!! How did you come to that conclusion? I thought you claimed to use
|> your intelligence. Could you please let this stupid idiot that is me, the
|> process of your inference?
I certainly use my intelligence that Lord Krishna has given me.
Shankacharya said 'narayano paro 'vyaktat'.
Go ask someone what that means (or read my earlier response to Jaldhar).
Then compare it with your claim that he said merging into the impersonal
Brahman is the ultimate goal.
|> Unfortuantely for you, many will still always be around, by your own
|> argument. All the jIvas are different and eternal, right?
jiva-bhuta-sanatana has nothing to do with advaitans.
If that was the case, Vedas would have said 'advaita-bhuta-sanatana'.
|> Then why not just let the advaitins alone as
|> the most eternally incorrigible, different jIvas of all? You may as well
|> give up - try as you might, there will always be advaitins around.
|> Unfortunately for you! My sympathies.
Lord Krishna gives us the strenght to fight such nonsensical sects as
the advaita. Lord Chaitanya personally defeated _all_ the mayavadis of
His time.
Unfortunately because of the influence of Kali-yuga, they reappeared.
Does not mean that they will always be around.
My deep condolences for you.
|> > What people like you do is that say eihter,
|> >
|> > 1. the refs. I sited are simply bogus and give no reason,
|> > 2. I am misinterpreting the ref. that I have sited, again no
|> > justification nor the correct _interpretation_
|> > 3. I am siting selective ref. (and you have done it in the
|> > following sentence and my answer follows)
|>
|> I have not seen any reference from you except from the Padma Purana. Here
I have cited numerous references from the Bhagavad Gita.
also read the purport for "aham sarvasya prabhavo..." (B.G. 10.8) by Srila
Prabupada. He has cited several Upanisadic references there.
And if you are really lazy, I can type it up.
|> is my reason for refuting that. First, out of all the umpteens of Puranas,
|> please give me a list of the 18 Puranas that Vyasa wrote. If you include
|> the Padma Purana in that list, here is my argument for why I think it was
|> not written by Vyasa.
okay. let us see your arguments first.
1.
|> It refers to the advaitic philosophy in a derogatory sense.
2.
|> Secondly it intentionally misinterprets what advaita says, so as to
|> show it in a bad light.
hmmm...
I think, somewhere you said that this is called:
"using an induction to justify the principle of induction"
Moreover, I really do not see any difference between the two reasons you
have cited. It really is just one reason.
do you belong to the
"Department of Tautological Pleonasms and Superfluous Redundancies Department"
???
|> That is my reason for telling you that your reference is bogus. If you
|> tell me that I cannot look at the Purana critically, tell me why. After
|> all, the Puranas are not sacrosanct like the Vedas. They have been
|> tampered with so many times in the past by vested interests such as yours.
|> The Meemaamsa Sutras tell us what is Sruti, and what differentiates it
|> from Smrti. Puranas are not Sruti.
gotcha.
Vedanta-sutra is not sruti.
Upanisads are not sruti.
Ha-Ha.
BTW, here is something from the 'sruti' for you:
Rg Veda 1.22.20 "Om tad visnor paramam padam"
The lotus feet of Vishnu are the Supreme devotional platform.
enjoy!
|> Whenever there is an apparent conflict
|> between Sruti and Smrti, Sruti is paramount. Hence I would rather rely on
|> the strong advaitic bent of the BrhadAraNyaka upanishad's "aham
|> brahmAsmi", than the bogus reference you quote to "disprove" advaita.
Aha!
'aham brhamasmi' is one commonly _misinterpreted_ injunction by the advaitans.
Moreover 'aham brhamasmi' does not mean that the Impersonal Brahman is supreme.
13.13 "I shall now explain the knowledge, knowing which you will taste the
eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me
(mat-param) lies beyond the cause and effect of the material world."
Lord Krishna Himself says that the Brahman is *subordinate* to Him!!!
Now I hope you wont display your ignorance by saying that the Meemakshas
or someone else are higher authority than Lord Krishna.
Again, my deep sympathies for you.
|> Also, please explain crystal clear advaitic statements like tat tvam asi,
|> ayamAtmA brahma, and sarvam khalvidam brahma etc. in the Upanishads
|> according to the bheda doctine of yours.
Srila Prabhupada has described 'tat tvam asi' in his purport in the B.G.
as per the 'acintya bhedabheda tattva'.
Read it.
|> > laughing on the shallowness of your own words to boost you morale?
|>
|> Ooh. Getting angry, are you?
:-) :-) :-)
So Vidya, how does it feels when you call someone 'blind', 'ostrich' etc.
and then get the same in response. I bet it hurts. Always remeber the golden
rule, do onto others what you want others to do to you. It will come in handy.
And now it is my turn.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
|> I specifically remember chiding you gently for sharing your private
|> correspondence with the Chinmaya mission swami without his assent. I
|> specifically remember telling you that ......
Stop this cowardly nonsense.
Post the so called scholarly article on this group and I will post my
response right here.
|> Name calling is the last resort in a debate, when pushed into a corner.
You certainly can try to gain sympathy from people, BUT, it was you who
started name calling by calling me 'blind', 'arrogant', 'ostrich' etc.
Sorry to tell you that on the net, you cannot fool the people.
My name calling was only in response to yours.
The date stamps on the articles says all.
thank you.
|> > Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhava all disagree with each other.
|> >
|> > Your argument has no value to your own claims.
|>
|> No. My claim is that the Brahma sutras are not as crystal clear as you
|> make it out to be. Hence it follows that different people will have
|> different interpretations. Hence they disagree with one another.
And hence Shankaracharya (by way of his philosophy) disagree with them.
Thus they all disagree with each other.
And I thought you were intelligent.
|> Shows how much you know of Sankara's works. The Vedas were not written by
|> any man.
Trying to make a big deal out of a technical nit. Shows the level of your
intelligence. FYI, I know sruti and smriti.
|> Sruti takes precedence over Smrti in Vedic exegesis, without any disrespect
|> to Vyasa. This is the time honored tradition, and if you want to break it, do
|> so with strong reasons. Let me know. Maybe I will even see your point.
I dont have to!!!
Both Vedanta and Upanisada are smriti!!!
*ONLY* the four Vedas are Sruti. All the rest is smriti.
I have never seen someone as ignorant as you.
|> > In the Bhagavad Gita 15.15, Lord Krishna says,
|> >
|> > vedais ca sarvair aham eve vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eve caham
|> >
|> > "By the Vedas I am to be known, indeed I am the compiler of
|> > Vedanta and I am the knower of the Vedas."
|> >
|> Vedanta is philosophy, Mahabharata is itihasa (history). The two serve
|> different primary purposes. Your so called contradiction vanishes into
|> thin air.
Both Vedanta and Mahabharata are smriti.
FYI, within the Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita is PURE philosophy.
The contradiction stays as is.
The shallowness of your claim becomes even more evident.
|> > 3. Accept the literal meaning of "aham" AND that Lord Krishna is
|> > right, AND that Veda Vyasa is perfectly sane AND
|> > Shankaracharya is WRONG.
|>
|> Answer my previous objection first. Krishna, Vyasa and Sankaracharya are
|> all correct. You are wrong.
Again, why dont you read B.G. 13.13 (Lord Krishna specifically declares the
Brahman to be subordinate to Him).
Krishna and Sankaracharya clearly contridict each other.
You neither understand sanskrit nor english. I feel extremely sorry.
|> > Dont be a HYPOCRITE. Take a stance, prove your worth.
|>
|> Ha.
Thanks for displaying your worth.
|> > I can also site several of upanisadic refs. to show the Supremacy of the
|> > Personality of Godhead over everything including the impersonal Brahman.
|> > Srila Prabhupada has quoted enough of those in his purports.
|>
|> So you accept the Impersonal Brahman as an entity, although not ultimate?
Thanks God. You understood me at least once.
Please read B.G. 13.13 and you will also know why.
|> > |> Both the Personal and the Impersonal are parts of our traditions
|> >
|> > Are you a part of those hypocrites who say that both dvaita and advaita
|> > are correct?
|> >
|> > or do you have a clear position?
|>
|> Surprise, surprise. I thought you were intelligent. Let me make myself
|> clear once again. I previously said that the dvaitins twist the meanings
|> of scriptures to suit their interpretations. Obviously dvaita and advaita
|> connot both be right for me, can they?
Ideally they cannot be, however you yourself said, "Both the Personal and the Impersonal are parts of our traditions".
Impersonalists = advaita (specifically the mayavad school)
Personalists = dvaita, acintya-bhedabheda tattva.
Why are you surprised? Take a course in elementry english grammar.
|> I have done all the scriptural substantiation I need to do, with the
|> upanishadic statements like "aham brahmAsmi" and "tat tvam asi".
Okay, so this was _all_ what you were getting all puffed up about?
Without even knowing what "aham brahmAsmi" and "tat tvam asi" means.
|> I do not rely on partisan and sectarian Puranas, unlike you. I have
|> quoted the Vedic literature that is called Sruti.
???
Never seen such an arrogant liar yet.
I have NOT seen a *single* quote from Sruti yet.
Both Vedanta and Upanisads are smriti. *ONLY* the four Vedas are Sruti.
All the rest is smriti.
And again, Sruti says:
Rg Veda 1.22.20 "Om tad visnor paramam padam"
The lotus feet of Vishnu are the Supreme devotional platform.
|> Please read my earlier articles again if you wish to see many more
|> scriptural quotations that I have made.
Sorry to tell you that there was not a *single* quote from Sruti there either
But nontheless your audacity is commandable.
|> > Shows your intellectual and moral level, I would however not generalise
|> > this as the intellectual and moral level of advaitans.
|>
|> Great. Your concern for my intellectual and moral level is indeed amusing.
|> Thanks. You still haven't proven either by logic or by scripture, how
|> advaita is nothing more than a mere superstition.
There is one quote from Sruti from me here (Rg Veda) besides several quotes
from the smriti (Puranas and Bhagavad Gita).
You have given only -two- quotes from smriti ("aham brahmAsmi" and "tat tvam
asi") so far and that too without telling how you interpret them.
BTW, the correct interpretation of "aham brahmAsmi" was posted by Vijay and
here I have included the one for "tat tvam asi".
enjoy!
|> I repeat my earlier statement. Your diatribe against advaita, as a response
|> to an innocuous query on superstitions is totally unwarranted, to say the
|> least.
You can continue to chant *your* statement(s) for eternity. It does not
have any value.
|> S. Vidyasankar
Hare Krishna!!
