[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: A Philosophical Sketch of Hinduism
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: A Philosophical Sketch of Hinduism
-
From: susarla@rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: 22 May 1995 16:49:36 GMT
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Mon May 22 12: 43:49 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <3pjdd2$rq5@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Ram Chandran (CHANDRA2%ERS.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU) wrote:
: A Philosophical Sketch of Hinduism
: Vedas are the roots for Vedantic Philosophy known as Vedanta. The three
: most important sources for Vedanta are Upanishads, Brahma Sutra and
: Geeta. Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have written elaborate commentaries
: on these with their own translations. Three major forms of Vedanta were
: developed respectively by Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva on the basis of
: their interpretations of what totality is. Any intellectual debate to
: prove which of them is right would be useless. Conclusions drawn from
: such intellectual analysis require corroborations from actual personal
: experience!. We have to be a Sankara, Madhvachar, Ramanuja, Buddha,
Actual personal experience is based on acquiring information through the
senses, which are themselves faulty. The senses therefore cannot yield
perfect information. Consequently, the best method for acquiring information
about the spiritual world is to accept an authority.
Now, if one is to accept an authority, then he must be doing it to find
knowledge about the Absolute Truth. Therefore, if several people are saying
different things about the Absolute Truth, then they cannot all be right. So,
to say that it does not matter who is right and who is wrong is to indicate
a lack of interest in actually understanding God.
In the Padma Purana (I don't have the verse with me, but I can look it up,
if you are interested) it very specifically mentions Ramanuja, Madhva,
Vishnuswami, and Nimbarka as the acharyas for the Kali Yuga who would
distribute the knowledge by which one can attain the highest stage of
spiritual consciousness. Sankaracharya is also mentioned, but the scripture
specifically says that he would preach to lead people astray from God.
Therefore, if one is interested in Vedanta, one should seek out a disciple in
the line of succession from Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnuswami, or Nimbarka.
Unfortunately, most people would rather accept their own, imperfect opinions
as authority rather than an authentic scripture like Padma Purana. Therefore,
we only need to look at the philosophies each of these acharyas preached.
Ramanuja, Madhva, Vishnuswami, and Nimbarka all preached devotional service
to God as the highest, whereas Sankara preached that everyone is God. This
is a BIG difference, and to say that the difference is trivial indicates a lack
of respect for both types of philosophy. We have to recognize the differences
in order to fully appreciate both schools of thought.
Now, it seems to me that a philosophy that tells people that they are God will
create a different mindset and attitude towards the world than a religion which
tells people to become the humble servants of God. I remember one advaitist
telling me, "That's what I like about advaita. You don't have to do anything."
I think this is especially revealing about the way the impersonalist philosophy
affects people. Actually, there is no doubt that Sankara and his disciples were
austere, but many of the popular Hindu movments of today have watered down
his philosophy and have told their disciples that vices like meat-eating,
intoxication, and so on are actually okay. If a guru cannot awaken a disciple's
interest in God, then the disciple will simply try to get happiness by
satisfying his senses with material things. In advaita philosophy, God is
ultimately impersonal, and consequently, He is made out to be uninteresting.
Even more important is the fact that there are verses in the Gita which clearly
contradict the advaitist school of thought.
Therefore, I conclude that we should not be misled into saying that all
these philosophies are actually one religion, or that the differences between
them are trivial, or something like that. To accept everything as correct is
to say that nothing is wrong. Consequently, this just degenerates into
moral relativism, which goes nowhere.
These are just my thoughts on this matter and they are not intended to
offend anyone.
-- HKS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Hari Krishna Susarla - "Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, -
- susarla@owlnet.rice.edu - become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me -
- Rice University - and worship Me. Being completely absorbed -
- Class of 1995 - in Me, surely you will come to Me." -
- Biochemistry - -- Bhagavad-Gita 9.34 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARER NAMA HARER NAMA
HARER NAMAIVA KEVALAM
KALAU NASTY EVA NASTY EVA
NASTY EVA GATIR ANYATHA
"IN THIS AGE OF QUARREL AND HYPOCRISY THE ONLY MEANS OF DELIVERANCE IS
CHANTING THE HOLY NAME OF LORD KRSNA. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. THERE IS
NO OTHER WAY. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."
-- Brhan-naradiya purana 38.126
