[Prev][Next][Index]
Rotten mangoes and failed analogies
> From: srinivas@Glue.umd.edu (Nagulapalli Srinivas)
> :I don't think you read ARV, but there was an example posted there that
> :Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati once made a mayavadi eat rotten mangoes
> :until the guy would admit that it was _not_ all one.
>
> I do not know if that means anything at all! Well, it is like making someone
> walk all the land until he admits that earth is _not_ round, just because
> he could not reach the starting place!
The analogy falls short, because the forced marcher could very easily contend
"Hey wait, you didn't let me see 75% of the earth! You only let me experience
less than 25% of the earth -- let me go on the water and then I can prove
it to you." The mayavadi, though, has no such recourse, since if it is indeed
all one, the rotten mangoes are every bit as much the divine experience as
halva. But as we all know, rotten mangoes are not conducive to
sat-cit-ananda, so what is the point of discussing them further? Both the
greatest of saints and the lowest of vagabonds reject rotten mangoes.
> :We accept several Vaisnava sampradayas.
> That is fine. So you do not accept any thing other than Vaisnava sampradayas?
> As you mentioned in the beginning of the posting, does it matter to the
> status of Truth or Reality, if some one accepts something or not in any way?
It certainly matters as far as that person's understanding goes! Truth, Reality
is independent of our perception, existing whether we don't care, misunderstand, or
understand. So, in seeking to understand Truth, one should certainly follow those
who _do_ understand Truth, right? One's natural tendency is to follow, to serve: even
great materialists serve. Even Bill Clinton is a servant. But if one serves those who
follow the Truth, then one will be easier able to also follow the Truth, correct?
> I do not understand this big griping about differences between
> Sampradayas
Then why do you continue to engage in it???
> -Srinivas Nagulapalli
-- Vijay
