[Prev][Next][Index]
Debate in Sanatana dharma
In article <3gp6rv$grh@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, Reuben <reuben@zilker.net> wrote:
>I've found:
>* People bickering amongst themselves
>* People criticizing others philisophies
>* People criticizing other religious organizations, cults, sects, etc.,
Mr. Reuben, I would like to point out that healthy debate has
been a part of the Vedic tradition for quite a while. The Vedas
lend themselves to a variety of views, karma-kanda, jnana-kanda, etc.,
and the great acaryas have always gone on periods called "digvijay",
conquering all opponents in all directions.
For example, Sankaracarya spent a lot of time defeating Buddhists
and fruitive ritualists (karma-kanda). Then Ramanujacarya spent time
defeating Sankara's followers. Madhvacarya also debated Sankara's
sect and presented his philosophy as the only clear conclusion of
the Vedas. Caitanya Mahaprabhu preached to followers of many different
philosophies, including Sankarites, Ramanujites, and Muslims. In all
cases, the idea was there that the specific philosophy being presented
was the only tangible view of the Vedanta. In many cases, the goal
was not to convert the immediate opponent of the debate (as that may
sometimes be impossible), but only to let all the audience hear and
learn for themselves.
In fact, the preaching zeal in Hinduism extends far before that,
as the "Helidorus find" indicates. Mr. -Y presented this data on some
of these newsgroups a while ago that in an archaeological dig dated
150 BC, there was a column inscribed by the first known Western [Greek]
devotee of Krishna.
>And what's worse:
>* People criticizing our Scriptures
>and..
>* People criticizing God, His Eternal Form, His saints, His abode, and
>His virtues.
Agreed, those people are the worst of the lot.
>Do any of you people have any concept of the entire message projected by
>our Saints, their writings, and our Scriptures?
Please, Mr. Reuben, explain what you mean here. Many of us have, on
many occasions, and as part of the ongoing debates here presented
authoritative views of the Vedic siddhanta as described by the
acaryas. Some people talk baselessly, asserting bogus conclusions,
but many keep their comments limited to scriptural views only.
>Does the word 'humility' mean absolutely anything to you all?
And to you, sir? On what ground can you make generic statements like
"I am ashamed of you all"? Surely we have offered something worthwhile
in this newsgroup!
>Anyway... This makes me sick.
Please present some ideas that you feel would better carry this
discussion. Don't just point out the faults you find (anyone can
do that); offer something useful and constructive or don't bother.
That's just my personal opinion, and in this case, I think it rings
true.
Nitai-Gaura Haribol!
--
Vijay
