[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Move over acharyas ...
kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart) wrote:
I took the liberty of slightly changing the subject line. I hope you don't
mind.
>On Sun, 14 Jan 1996 12:41:08 +0000, you wrote:
^^^ = HKS
>
>>I am getting too busy to carry on in this discussion because frankly I am
>>finding it to be quite fruitless, and besides I have much more important
>>services to be involved in. Let me end here with some concluding observations.
>>
>>1) Ken Stuart denies he is an advaitin. According to him, we are not all one
>>now, but we do all become one in the end.
>
>I never said this.
>
>There is no "end".
Did you not say "so just He and perishable jivas, no imperishable jivas". HKS
may have been talking about this. Actually that's the same thing I thought too.
So could you please explain what you actually meant by "just He and perishable
jivas"?
>>the guru. For example, Ken tries to argue that his philosophy of the souls
>>merging into one God is compatible with the philosophy of Gaudia
>>Vaishnavism.
>
>I have never stated that souls merge into one God, so I could not have
>commented that it was compatible with the philosophy of Gaudiya
>Vaishnavism.
Well, on one occasion you did quote Prabhupada which seemed to support your
statements. Something about individual soul and supersoul and so on. So this
might have been the cause for the confusion here.
>You have reason to follow your teachers and what they teach. This is
>good and correct !
>
>Others do likewise, and have different viewpoints than you. Then we
>get together and discuss it in this newsgroup.
>
>This is fine, and helps us understand what is meant by "God" and
>"soul" and "jiva".
God = soul = jiva :-).
>>The fact is that in any debate, the burden of proof falls on the person
>>making an assertion that is not intuitively obvious. Ken says that Vishnu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and Shiva are the same. But the Vaishnava acaryas say otherwise.
Well there is nothing intuitive about God. Not for many people, anyway. It's
clearly by revelation that you can talk about God. So this kind of argument by
HKS is not valid.
>See above on Ramanuja's actual viewpoint.
>
>>I have also
>>shown Ken many places in the scriptures were Shiva is seen as subordinate to
>>Vishnu, which Ken accepted.
>When Krishna performs activities that could be seen as "subordinate",
>then you say that he is just providing an example, but then you won't
>accept the same reasoning towards Siva.
Correct!
>Ken
Ramakrishnan.
--
That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not
see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperish-
able. But, there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - IV.iii.23
Follow-Ups:
