[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
On Sun, 12 Nov 1995 09:59:07 +0000, Hare Krishna Susarla wrote:
>Ken 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.
According to the Kashmir Shaivites, their scriptures came from God
Himself through the authorized disciplic succession.
Ultimately, you have your authorities who declare your scriptures to
be authentic, and they have their authorities who declare their
scriptures to be authentic.
Of course, the Jews, Christians and Moslems all say their scriptures
came from God Himself through the authorized disciplic succession.
In fact, it is hard to find a religious group that doesn't say that.
>....you have to explain to me how "each
>sect or religion is as equally valid as the others" when they all say
>something different.
Because all the parts that differ are not essential.
The great founders of all the religions, when pressed, revealed that
Love and Devotion to God is the only essential component.
Everything else is just helpful methodologies which differ from one
group to another in the same way that Ford maintenance differs from
Honda maintenance.
This is no way diminishes any of those religions; Gaudiya Vaisnavism
is a totally valid and effective method of Devotion to God.
>But this idea that you have
>written requires that I give up my good judgement and common sense to
>believe it.
Everthing I've read in Gaudiya Vaisnavism indicates that it has a
clear understanding that "common sense" will take us in the wrong
direction, ie towards accumulating material goods and making the ego
as big and strong as possible.
=============================
>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.
It is part of God's plan for the Universe that there are "actual
beings" who also "embody some specific aspects of reality", in the
same way that in a more mundane way, George Washington was a real
person who has come to embody "telling the truth" and Mahatma Gandhi
has come to embody "non-violent resistance". But in the case of
Vishnu, Brahma, and Rudra, what they embody is not dependant on
historians, but is rather part of the structure of the Universe.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
(if messages to me are retuned,
send the 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
Follow-Ups:
References:
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
