[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi
kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart) wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:34:50 +0000, you wrote:
**
^^^^ = Hari Krishna Susarla
**
>
>>The All-Pervasive, Indestructible One (in the form of Ken Stuart) quoted
>>himself saying (as Krishna Susarla) the following:
>>
>>>>I know of many such groups. In Vivekananda Vedanta society, no effort is
>>>>made to encourage members to become vegetarians (indeed, the founder is
>>>>himself a nonvegetarian). I had one friend who was with Chinmaya mission for
>>>>7 years, and never during that time did it occur to him to give up eating
>>>>meat (he even ate beef!). In fact, he became a student instructor, and he
>>
>>It is dishonest to say that one can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
>>materialistic vices.
>
>Once again, a straw man.
>
>No one is saying "One can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
>materialistic vices".
**
Doesn't this depend on the definition of "materialistic vices"? I mean, so many
different cultures consider different things as vices. The Hindus consider
eating beef sinful. The Jews consider eating pork sinful. It purely depends on
what culture one is born in. Of course there are a few converts, but that
doesn't mean much (there are converts both ways usually). HKS seems to consider
beef eating a major sin. On the other hand Americans have asked me in a very
puzzled manner why Hindus don't eat beef. However these people never question
the Jewish doctrine on pork because they hear about it at a very young age and
it seems very natural to them. On the other hand I have heard some Americans
criticize Koreans for eating Dog meat. In these cases it is purely a matter of
cultural prejudices. Personally, I don't see any difference in eating Dog, Pig
or Cow's meat. An animal is an animal.
Now let me quote something I read from a book recently. It was a translation of
Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra (by Alain Danielou). The author seems well read in the
Sanskrit and various Hindu scriptures and he quotes the following passage of
Ramanuja. It's quite incredible and if the translation is wrong will the
experts on Ramanuja speak up (ex. Ken Stuart)? Let's not indulge in mere
rhetoric or name calling or questioning the parampara and so on.
"The womans call is the prelude, lying beside her the hymn, penetrating her sex
the offertory and ejaculation the final hymn" - from the Chandogya Upanishad.
In his commentary Ramanuja writes " He who suffers intensely from his
adulterous desires should consider that they form part of the rites of the Sama
veda, of the left hand, which does not forbid sleeping with other men's
wives".
The above is given in Danielou's book. I checked up some of the other
quotations (from some puranas) and they were correct and didn't seem have been
quoted out of context. However I don't have Ramanuja's translation and wasn't
able to verify it. However it's most probably correct. This would totally
contradict all common notions of what Ramanuja found as acceptable and
un-acceptable behavior.
**
>Do I have to post explicit details of what a handful of ISKCON members
>have been convicted by the law of doing?
**
Well, please do :-).
**
>>If sex is natural, so is having children.
>>
>>On the other hand, I don't see condoms growing on trees.
>
>Huh ??
>
>What does "natural" have to do with this??
**
I suppose one should also not wear clothes. I don't see 'em growing on trees.
One can't drink soup, they ain't growing on trees, so on and so forth.
**
>>>>My point is that Shiva is clearly depicted to be a devotee of Vishnu in
>>>>saastra. And yet you and others maintain that Shiva is God. If Shiva is God,
>>>>then why is he worshipping Vishnu? You try to sidestep the question by
>>>>citing the instances of the inconceivable potencies of Krishna. Your
>>>>assumption is that if Krishna can do things which we cannot understand by
>>>>our limited senses, then Shiva must also. But Krishna's pastimes in this
>>>>regard can be understood only by understanding Him to be the Supreme Lord.
>>>>However, the same cannot necessarily be said of Shiva. If you understand
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sez who?
>>>>Shiva to be God, then how is it that he is also a devotee of Vishnu? Just
>>>>answer the question directly.
**
The same way Vishnu can worship Shiva and still be God.
**
>>Ken, you seem really confused. This verse supports what I have been saying
>>all along. Lord Krishna served Sandipani with devotion to set the example
>>that we should also accept and serve a genuine guru with similar reverence.
>>So, if Lord Siva is worshipping Vishnu to set an example, then does that not
>>mean that we should all also worship Vishnu?
>
>Absolutely !
**
In the same way one should also worship Shiva, since Krishna set an example
by doing so.
**
>>Thus far, you have not been able to explain how it is that Siva can be God,
>>and yet worship someone else as God.
>
>And you have been unable to give a convincing reason why not....
**
Well HKS hasn't been able to explain how Krishna can worship Shiva and yet be
God either.
**
>Okay -- are you ready now, here it comes.... (B.U. 3.7 cont'd):
>
>"There is no other Seer than He, there is no other hearer than He,
>there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He.
>He is the Inner Controller -- of our self and immortal. All else but
>He is perishable."
>
>SO, no eternal jivatmas. Just He and perishable jivas.
**
Well, there are no perishable jivatmas either. If a jivatma exists, it must
either be him or for a period of it's existence be something other than him. So
the quotation you have given cannot be reconciled with perishable jivatmas,
unless the perishable jivatmas are a delusion (like the rope mistaken for a
snake, so on and so forth). A jivatma is a delusion and hence perishable. You
are almost there Ken, you'll become an Advaitin in a short while :-).
**
>Ken
>kstuart@snowcrest.net
Ramakrishnan.
Follow-Ups:
