[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
In article <48obma$c61@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>According to the Kashmir Shaivites, their scriptures came from God
>Himself through the authorized disciplic succession.
If that is true, then you should have no trouble printing their disciplic
succession here. If they cannot even trace their disciplic succession back to
God, then why should they expect us to believe in its authenticity? Please
post their unbroken 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.
It is possible. However, none of these groups ever refer to such a disciplic
succession these days. It is quite possible that the major sects of these
faiths are coming in a broken parampara, and that would explain why there is
so much disagreement within them as to whose ideas are correct.
>
>In fact, it is hard to find a religious group that doesn't say that.
I can think of many religious groups which do not say that. I never heard a
Christian, Muslim, or Jew of the present day say that he could trace his
spiritual lineage all the way back to their respective prophets.
In fact, I have certainly not heard this idea from the majority of Hindu
groups represented here.
For example, if memory serves, I believe you are a follower of Vivekananda.
Can you post the listing of gurus through which God transmitted the knowledge
to Vivekananda? If you cannot even do that, there is no reason why I should
even begin to accept it as bona fide.
>
>>....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.
>
Not essential? Some people say we are all God. Others state adamantly that we
are only the servants of God. Still others say that there is no God. This is a
disagreement over the most BASIC understanding of God, which influences entire
world views and ideologies, and you are saying that it is not essential?
>The great founders of all the religions, when pressed, revealed that
>Love and Devotion to God is the only essential component.
That is not what all of them said, though. Buddha never spoke about God, and
most of the present day cults have nothing to do with God. You are making wild
generalizations which you cannot support.
I would agree that there is more than one authentic religious tradition, but I
do not agree that all religions are true. There has to be a standard for
determining, and I think the point you mentioned-- that they teach about
loving God, is part of that standard.
>>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.
Common sense is useful for convincing myself that I am not God, the
omnipotent, all-knowing, origin of everything. Furthermore, common sense is
useful in determining that a religion which tells everyone to become God, is
not the same as a religion which tells everyone to become the devotees of God.
Beyond that, the senses and the mind must be guided by guru, sadhu, and
saastra, because alone, the senses are not up to the task of determining the
nature of the Absolute Truth.
>=============================
>
>>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.
>
It seems like you have now admitted that Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are real
persons. That being said, you now have to indicate what is the process of
knowing about these persons. If one scripture says that Shiva is a devotee,
and the other scripture says that Shiva is God, then they can't both be true.
If Shiva is a real person as you have admitted, then there must be a method
for obtaining correct information about him.
In fact, Lord Shiva's sampradaya (the one he founded) is known as the Rudra
sampradaya, and the gurus therein understand Shiva to be a devotee, which is
consistent with the Vedic literatures, and with other bona fide sampradayas.
They have received knowledge in disciplic succession from him, and he has
indicated to him that he is a devotee of Vishnu.
Your desire to say that all religions are the same is an admirable sentiment,
but it is not realistic. All religions are not the same, and it is far better
to sincerely study them rather than to brush aside the differences and say
they all go to the same goal.
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
References:
