[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
On Wed, 08 Nov 1995 09:23:14 -0600, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:
>Ken Stuart wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course, this post ignores all the OTHER scriptures.... :-)
>>
>> Which is understandable, since they are rejected by his sect, and it
>> is appropriate for devotees to respect the decisions of their sect.
>>
>
>Which other scriptures? Please be specific.
Any of the Kashmir Shaivite scriptures, such as the Shiva Sutras, and
any of the Shaiva Siddhanta scriptures, for example.
>I notice once again you are using the "his sect vs. my sect" approach,
>something I found rather distasteful.
You are just reading in the "vs." part, it wasn't there.
My opinion is that from within the viewpoint of each sect or religion,
all its dogmas and rules are correct, they make a coherent system.
Nevertheless, though they each appear to contradict each other, each
sect or religion is as equally valid as the others.
Here are some metaphors:
If your doctor recommends that you take a certain prescription drug,
then there are other prescription drugs that your pharmacist will
advise that you cannot also take, because of adverse reactions to the
combination. Nevertheless, this does not make any of these drugs
adverse or ineffective when not combined in that way.
If you drive a certain model of Ford car, you must use a certain grade
of oil, you must inflate your tires to a certain pressure, you must
use only specific Ford parts in your car. You must never use Honda
parts in your Ford. Honda parts are to be shunned. This is
necessary. Those with Hondas must never use Ford parts in their car.
But both cars, when working properly, will get you where you're going.
>I don't regard as a sect a religion
>which appeals to people of all cultures and creeds.
I'm just using sect to mean a religious group with a specifically
defined organization and beliefs. Nothing more than that.
EG
Christianity is a religion, Southern Baptist is a sect.
>it was only now that I have given the Vedic/Vaishnava paradigm more
>consideration that I actually accepted that there was a being called
>Shiva. Prior to that, I was taught, as many Hindus were, that all the
>Hindu 'gods' were simply myths to symbolize some impersonal Absolute
>Truth. Frankly, I don't think this teaching is very respectful to the
>devotees of *any* deity, since it is indirectly telling them that they are
>worshipping some mythological concoctions. What say you?
They are actual beings that embody some specific aspects of reality
(cf the Sivananda quote in this thread in the newsgroup).
The "myths" and "impersonal" bit are modern Industrial/Scientific Age
rationalizations.
>I have noticed that there are some people who take offense at the
>scriptural idea that Shiva is Vishnu's devotee, even though (strangely
>enough) they themselves do not believe in Shiva. This is a kind of
>hypocrisy. I for one have been interested in seeing if there are any
>genuine Shiva bhaktas who do not subscribe to this impersonalist
>philosophy, but sadly I have found none as of yet.
Check out the Shaivite monks who put out "Hinduism Today" magazine.
They have a WWW page for the magazine.
Be seeing you,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
send error messages/bounced messages to ken@macshasta.com
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
References:
