[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
-
Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
-
From: kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart)
-
Date: 5 Dec 1995 21:00:48 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 638 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
-
References: <48eamd$mb9@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <48obma$c61@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <1394538101-67750962@studentserver1.swmed.edu>
-
Reply-To: kstuart@snowcrest.net
On Tue, 28 Nov 95 23:43:23 GMT, you wrote:
>In article <48obma$c61@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>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.
The Roman Catholic Church easily traces its lineage of succession back
to Jesus Christ, who was himself initiated by John the Baptist, and
then you get into the Jewish succession, most of which is detailed
very boringly in the Bible itself, back to Moses who received the
scriptures directly from God.
Of course, you have the Mormons, who claim to have received the Book
of Mormon directly from God within the last couple of hundred years
(if I remember right).
>>
>>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.
Siddha Yoga claims this, as does the Hinduism Today group (I can never
remember the name of the group). Plenty of Buddhists claim this,
including all the major Tibetan schools.
>For example, if memory serves, I believe you are a follower of Vivekananda.
Sorry nope. Although I *am* rather fond of his guru, Ramakrishna.
Maybe you are remembering me as such, because I posted the quote from
Ramakrishna about how great the Srimad Bhagavatam is.
>>>....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?
Yes.
>>>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.
My point exactly. :-)
>>>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.
Why not?
Krishna was a devotee of Sandapani (sp?).
>If Shiva is a real person as you have admitted, then there must be a method
>for obtaining correct information about him.
Probably the best way would be to ask him.
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
