[Prev][Next][Index]
Re:Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re:Why this Ramakrishna- Vivekananda bashing?
-
From: srinivas@Glue.umd.edu (Nagulapalli Srinivas)
-
Date: 12 Feb 1995 18:10:33 -0500
-
From srinivas@Glue.umd.edu Sun Feb 12 18: 00:25 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Project Glue, University of Maryland, College Park
In article #2123 Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu> writes:
> From: tomh7493@aol.com (TomH7493)
>> This is just as enlightening as the ignorant one who had never seen a map
>> and travels between Washington, DC and Richmond, Virginia, but only on
>> Interstate 95. He thinks that is the only way and all other roads lead
>> elsewhere. But those who have a more open mind or who have actually
>> traveled other roads know that Route 1 also goes between these cities.
>I have been that way many times. The intelligent person will tell you
>"The best, most direct way to get to Washington from Richmond is to take
>Interstate 95 North. There are a few other ways there too." However, only
>the ignorant person will suggest "Actually, I think Interstate 95 South
>will take you there too" -- anyone who followed that road would soon find
>himself in Miami, but nowhere near Washington DC. There are undoubtedly many
>valid paths, but to say "All paths lead to GOD" as you have in more than one
>case is foolish, and may get you to Miami, but not to the spiritual world.
Excellent argument. But the conclusion does not follow the argument. Because
unlike Richmond being different and distinctly separate from Washington DC,
God is EVERYWHERE and nothing exists other than Him. So one cannot say
that the assertion "All paths lead to GOD" is inapplicable to the spiritual
world.
>> Because He acceptes these other paths, but they don't accept HIM only show
>> the ignorance and narrowmindedness of these other paths.
>I think that 2+2=5. I also think that 2+2=4. Both seem like correct answers to
>me. However, my friend the math major refuses to accept my views on this issue.
>She says that 2+2=4 and there's no other way about it. Because I accept those
>other answers, but the followers of that other answer don't accept my views onl
y
>shows the ignorance and narrowmindedness of those other answers.
Naah! I think more appropriate way of saying what you intended to say is
2+2=5 and 2+something_other_than_2 = 5 , because the assertion says
"All paths leads to GOD", so the end result- the R.H.S value must be the
same no matter what the L.H.S values are, and not the other way around!!
Other than that, the rest of the argument is fine. Also, what do you care
what your friend with math major thinks, as long as you know exactly what you
are talking about??? After all digits are not reality, but only symbols and
as long as you know what you are talking about, you need not feel bad if someone
refuses it, be it math major or minor. You can have your own symbols and
notation for digits, and operations and create a new Science. Symbols are just
tools that serve your thinking and not the other way around.
Also there was some remark of anguish about Ramakrishna being anti-Vaishnava
or something. I do not know the issue, but if he said and lived the assertion
of "All Paths leads to God", I do not know how someone can state that he is
anti to something. That looks self-contradictory isn't it? Also Krishna
Himself says "Chathruvidha Bhajanthemam Janah Sukruthi norjunah..." Why are
we fighting as to who is for, or who is anti, as if it is some politics??
Why can't we take anything we find useful for Sadhana from whoever the
Master is and leave the rest?? After all God is not patented product of any
sect or even religion. I just cannot understand what the big fuss we want
to make as to prove Vaishnava is greater than Ramakrishna, or Dwaita is
greater than Adwaita?? Or even shouting that ISCKON (sorry if I mis-spelt it)
alone leads the way etc.. God-realization is not a show-business to show off
how smart I am or worse how stupid others are!! We do not want to measure
ourselves against the yardsticks of Kindness, Tolerance and Understanding,
but only by how much we argued and even feel a vague sense of victory if
some one is tired of replying or is even strong enough to ignore our outbursts!!
Even Copernicus did not indulge in mud-slinging when he discovered earth is
not flat!
With regards,
-Srinivas Nagulapalli
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Man is not a Rational animal. Man is a rationalising animal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
