[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
-
Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: 19 Dec 1995 06:25:44 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 797 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) wrote
Ramakrishna Balasubramanian (or was that Ken Stuart? Aw, who
cares, they're all one anyway) wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, at last he's beginning to see the light.
[long part with N^2 quotes, none of which answered my question deleted]
Oh, no he's back to his normal mode!
particular sahasranama for
> tamasic people, in the SAME Paadma purana, if possible.
>Frankly, I am starting to doubt that this is an authentic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>version of the Padma Purana. Before I can respond to any of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>this, please provide the disciplic succession through which
>this Purana was received. When I quote scripture, I only use
>verses coming through Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. That is
>to ensure that the scripture is authentic. However, you have
**
Hoha haha hehe !!!!! Another one for my humor archive.
You have given proof? Really? Wow, I am impressed! Give us a break will ya?
Give me a verse by Lord Krishna or Vishnu or Narasimha or .. (you get the idea,
I hope) that they said the verses I quoted are for tamasic people and I'll
admit it. I don't want YOUR interpretations of what the verse on four bonafide
sampradayas mean. According to you the 4 bonafide sampradayas => the
classification of tamasic, rajasic and saatvic puranas. Well, I don't agree
with this peculiar interpretation. I can give quotes from the Shiva purana
which claim only saivite sampradayas are the true ones. This will make the
bhagavatam etc. tamasic. In any case this "tamasic purana" joke originated with
Dr. Reddy. Before that you never said anything about tamasic puranas. May be
ha can enlighten me, or provide his view of how the bonafide sampradyas (:-))
=> this uhm, unique classification.
Give me a straight-forward verse coming after one of the
shlokas I stated. Any other place won't do, since, many other puranas claim the
reverse of what you say. In fact not even other puranas, but the Paadma purana
itself contradicts you. I don't want quotes from humans, whoever they
maybe.
**
>The proof is given by the acharyas of the 4 bona fide
>sampradayas, or disciplic successions through which spiritual
>knowledge is to be received. Their traditions are legitimated
>by the Padma Purana, and they accept the 3-fold classification
>of the Puranas into tamasic, rajasic, and sattvic and have done
>so for many centuries.
**
Really, please quote the verses which give this classification and WHERE
exactly they occur.
And for centuries these silly mis-interpretations have been going on. And
there are people to believe it. What can I say?
**
>Of course, we can accept the statements given by great
>authorities such as Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Sri Krishna
>Caitanya, and so on, or we can accept Ramakrishna
>Balasubramanian. But to be honest, I don't believe Ramakrishna
>B. is a recognized authority on the Vedanta. If he is, someone
>please give me the verses which substantiate him as a bona fide
>acharya. I certainly would not want to commit an offense
>against a great personality.
>also indicated
**
This is a personal attack, and you are trying to deflect the argument to
something else. I never claimed I was better than any of the personalities you
quote above. I just told that these people emphasized certain of their
experiences. Ofcourse, if the arguments you give were obtained from
them, AND they weren't emphasizing certain of their experiences, I think they
were mistaken. I don't consider any person a spiritual stone-henge to whom I
have to pay obeisance.
I have no use for sampradayas or any such thing.
**
> that Lord Vishnu (or Krishna) himself must have said it right
after the shlokas
> on Shiva. Vaishnavite teachers' statements will be summarily
rejected. So will
> comic posts in srh about "tamasic puranas" with no good proof
what-so ever.
>The proof has already been given. The problem is that you
>consider your interpretations to be more authoritative than
>those of the acharyas and the Bhagavatam.
**
See my paragraph above. In any case if a person cannot give proper
explanations he is not an acharya. I am sure Madhva or Ramanuja would not have
given silly arguments like yours. If they did, then they too were wrong, get
it? This silly acharya business is used only by people who cannot convince the
other person.
**
>> Bwahahahahahah !!!! Fish, anyone? Actually I smell a putrid
>>great white shark
>Maybe you should become vegetarian?
**
Unfortunately it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to BECOME vegetarian. Why, you ask?
Well, *drum roll*, I am already vegetarian. One can't BECOME vegetarian when
one is already veggie, you see. It's like "You are already Brahman, So you
can't BECOME Brahman". How do you know how fish smells, you ask. Ah,
very clever of you! Just take a walk in the Elliot's beach in Madras, and
you'll know. It was quite surprising that the same smell started coming out of
the monitor when I read that post about Sankara misleading (stifled laughter)
people.
**
>> :-). Since the puranas were compiled long before Sankara
>>arrived, I strongly
>> doubt this version.
>Vyasadeva, the compiler of the Puranas, could see into past,
>present, and future like any great personality. He could
>therefore describe certain events which were to take place.
**
:-)
**
>Was this particular copy of the Paadma purana found in
>> Vaishnavite-ville by El-Vaishnava and translated by El "Let's
>change scriptures
>> to suit our purpose" acharya?
>
>No, they were passed down in disciplic succession by one
>acharya to the next. That is the way Vedic knowledge is to be
>received.
**
More :-) :-)
**
>Therefore, I must now ask the following. Who is your guru? What
>sampradaya does he come from? On what basis do you say that the
>Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is not authentic? What Vedic acharyas
>have recognized you as an authority? Granted that these
>transcendental literatures do not agree with your own personal
>opinions, but I am stilling trying to figure out why I should
>give your opinions more weight than the teachings of an acharya
>in disciplic succession.
**
No, they agree completely. I have clearly pointed out why. I only disagree
with your interpretations. You are engaging in yet another attempt to distort
what I said.
Why not try thinking for yourself instead? I was just pointing out
contradictory statements in the Veda and else-where. Now it's up to you to do
careful research and find out why these contradictions exist, instead of using
some hand-waving arguments from so called "acharyas who have disciplic
succession".
I consider the Brahman or Lord Krishna or Lord Shiva as wish you to call it, my
guru. I am also indebted to various personalities (too numerous to even
mention) and books for solving many of my doubts.
**
>None of the Buddhist texts can be traced back to the Buddha
>himself, since the Buddha did not write anything. Instead, it
>was his disciples who put his teachings into written form, and
>they only did so once he passed on. As a result, the various
>sects were born because each one let their own personal
>interpretations color what they were taught. That's why you
>have strange regulations like allowing people to eat meat
>cooked by another person even though Buddha was emphatically
>against violence of all kinds.
>
**
The Dhammapada is directly from the Buddha. So are the other texts I
quoted. Pray, how did you obtain information that these aren't authentic?
Maybe Sage Vyasa fore-saw it, or one of the fine "gurus" in your tradition
says so?
**
>I don't present my opinions. I present the teachings of the
>Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, to the best of my
>unfortunately limited ability.
**
It hope it is limited. If it accurately represents the "Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya
sampradaya" I'll have to add all interpretations of that "sampradaya" to my
humor archive.
**
>And there are NO contradictions I can see, atleast if
>> you accept the Advaitic philosophy.
>
**
[rest of the post deleted, mainly because it's degenerating into some personal
arguments, for which I admit that I have to accept part of the blame]
Ramakrishnan.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
