[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
>On Wed, 08 Nov 1995 09:23:14 -0600, Ken Stuart wrote:
>Any of the Kashmir Shaivite scriptures, such as the Shiva Sutras, and
>any of the Shaiva Siddhanta scriptures, for example.
Putting them on the same level as the Vedas and the Puranas is a shaky
position at best. The acharyas, who are authorities in these matters, never
accepted such scriptures as bona fide, so there is no reason why we should.
Besides, if the scripture is known as the "Kashmir Shaivite" scripture, then
that shows that it applies only to a particular sect (i.e. Shaivites in
Kashmir only), and cannot give universal knowledge.
The basis for accepting something as scripture has nothing at all to do with
whether or not it sanctions our personal opinions. A text is accepted as
scripture when it presents perfect knowledge. The texts you refer to are all
powrusheya texts, and as such, they cannot be put on the same level as the
mainstream Vedic literatures, which came from God Himself through the
authorized disciplic succession.
>
>>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 point is that you marginalize another person's position by saying it
applies only to his "sect." If something is a sect, then that implies
exclusivity. It also implies that its knowledge is not universal, but
applies only to a specific creed or culture.
Real religion must be transcedental to such mundane sectarian divisions. I
argue that because the Krishna-consciousness movement has become popular all
over the world, attracting people from almost every major culture and creed,
that is strong evidence that it is beyond sectarianism. Bona fide spiritual
knowledge attracts everyone, regardless of their cultural differences, and
this is exactly what the Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, presented by the
Krishna-consciousness movement has done.
>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.
>
I'm really not interested in personal opinions. Personal opinions are only
as perfect as the person who stated them.
>Nevertheless, though they each appear to contradict each other, each
>sect or religion is as equally valid as the others.
This is bogus. It's insulting. And it is illogical. No matter how
confidently you say that 2+2=5, people are still going to question it
because it makes no sense. Similarly, you have to explain to me how "each
sect or religion is as equally valid as the others" when they all say
something different.
How is it that the Satan-worshipping religion with its blood sacrifices and
impiety is just as valid as the Catholic religion with its more rigid
religious practices? How is it that fundamentalist Islam, with its fatwas
and jihads, is just as valid as Sanatana-dharma, with its universal outlook
on life and God? How is it that a religion made up by some street bum which
allows him to engage in illicit sex is just as good as a religion which
teaches abstinence and piety? How is it that born-again Christianity, which
sanctions all kinds of nonsense, is just as good as the Christianity of
Jesus Christ, which was much more austere by comparision? How is that a
religion which teaches you that you are God is just as valid as a religion
that teaches you to be humble enough to admit that you are less than God?
If your whole philosophy rests on this sentiment that all religions are the
same, then I must say it leaves much to be desired. Perhaps if you were to
revise your statement, I could examine that. But this idea that you have
written requires that I give up my good judgement and common sense to
believe it. Therefore, I do not accept it.
>Here are some metaphors:
The use of metaphor does not prove anything. Metaphor is used to explain a
relationship between two things by providing a similar relationship which is
more easily understood. That being said, I'm not going to bother responding
to your metaphors, since I could easily provide counter metaphors that would
make more sense anyway.
>>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).
This is a contradiction. You say that they are "actual beings" but then you
say that they "embody some specific aspects...." In other words, do you or
do you not belive that there is a person named Lord Shiva, who is one of the
presiding deities of the universe? Or do you belive that he is just some
symbol of some impersonal truth? I think you really believe the latter, but
just to show how open minded and all-accepting you are, you are trying not
to give a definite answer.
I already dealt with Sivananda's quote on SCI (I can't forward it to SCH,
because I can't find it now either) by quoting extensively from
Brahma-samhitaa. Information from scripture carries more authority than
opinions by some modern day yogi, and not suprisingly, everything Sivananda
says is contradicted by the Vedic literatures. Therefore, I see no reason
why I should accept some mere mortal's interpretation of reality (which
changes from person to person) when a more timeless and constant version has
been around that gives a more sensible understanding.
>
>The "myths" and "impersonal" bit are modern Industrial/Scientific Age
>rationalizations.
>
Exactly. They are modern day ideas, but they are not true. Certainly such
impersonal ideas are not supported by the saastra. These modern day
impersonalist ideas appeal to materialistic people who want to imagine that
they can become God by some process. Also, because Hindus are deeply ashamed
of their religion, they are afraid to say that there really is a Brahma, a
Vishnu, and a Shiva. Instead, they make up foolish interpretations that the
"Hindu gods" are simply "different aspects of the same reality." They might
as well just say they don't believe it, and leave it at that. That would
certainly be more honest on their part.
>>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.
I have read their Hinduism Today, and also their _Dancing with Shiva_. As it
turns out, they are also impersonalists who don't really accept that Lord
Shiva is a celestial person. They aren't even very convincing in their
arguments, and their quotations from scripture are highly questionable as
they seem to deliberately avoid printing the original Sanskrit (perhaps to
avoid critical examination of their interpretations). So, I still cannot say
that I have found any authentic Shaivites so far.
Frankly, I think the best Shaivites are the Vaishnavas themselves, because
the Vaishnavas, who are personalists, also accept Shiva as a person. On the
other hand, most people who call themselves Shaivites (such as the HT
people) try to marginalize his position by saying that he is ultimately
impersonal. At least if they mistakenly accept Shiva as supreme, they can
make advancement if they practice real devotion to him, which requires that
they understand him to be a person. But prayers by an impersonalist are very
offensive (who wouldn't be offended after being told that he had no
personality?).
Therefore, I still remain unconvinced of the so-called devotion of
worshippers of other deities when these same people admit to their
impersonalist understanding. Worshipping a particular deity as God, but then
saying that that God is actually impersonal, is really the same thing as
saying that that deity does not exist. It is a position taken by persons
with an atheistic bias but who still want to be pious -- or by Hindus who,
being influenced by Western ideas, are too ashamed of their religion to
practice it as it is. The conclusion then, is that if you want to worship
Shiva, or any other deity, take the real Shiva as he is described in the
Vedas (as a person), and not the Shiva of your imagination. Then at least we
could have a more interesting dialogue on religion.
yours,
-- HKS
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Follow-Ups:
