[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Becoming Hindu
"janahan (j.) skandaraniyam" <skandar@nortel.ca> wrote:
> shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>
> >That would need one to justify the existence and worth of the "third
> >eye," to begin with, and this is a problem I would not care to tackle
> >myself.
>
> One's own realizations are justification enough. You don't
> need to tackle it after a achieving a certain state.
Is that right? If so, then why can we not say that "one's own
realizations are justification enough" for such things as a hare's
horn, a flower in the sky, a childless-woman's-son, etc.? If things
are to be accepted without proper evidence based simply upon "one's
own realizations," then anything at all would become acceptable.
> >To come back to the main question, it is beyond question that
> >Vivekananda was not classically well-schooled in Vedanta; that his
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Classically?
Yes, that's right. By that term I mean a proper schooling in Shruti
and in the classical subjects of grammar, etc., and also a rigorous
training in the prasthAna-traya texts, etc., which is done by serious
"classical" students by full-time effort lasting several years (twelve
according to tradition, but may vary somewhat depending upon the
individual, the specific school, teacher, etc.).
> >For instance, I have
> >heard that Vivekananda claimed that there is no support for heaven and
> >hell in Vedic literature. This is easily refuted with a number of
> >examples, and the whole concept of dharma becomes meaningless if such
> >is the case.
>
> You have misunderstood him and his writings. Give me the exact quote.
I'm sorry; you've got me there. All I know is what I read from
someone else. If I've made a mistake, let me know: did or did not
Vivekananda say that there is no support for heaven and hell in Shruti?
> The concept of dharma IS MEANINGLESS to one who has achieved the Goal.
> Dharma, adharma, and all opposites are MEANINGLESS to the realized
> one. Dharma is the path, Dharma is not the Goal. As long as one has
> not achieved the Goal, one should walk the path of Dharma.
> I shall say it again, one's own realizations are strenght enough. My
> statement was not based on anything from the physical, i.e., V's and
> RK's works etc., it was purely spiritual. Again,
Indeed? Now, this is exactly the kind of feelgood rubbish that sets
apart the ersatz neo-Vedanta or pseudo-Vedanta of the likes of
Vivekananda, from the Real Thing. The approach of the
pseudo-Vedantins seems to be, "let's wave our hands all over the
place, for all that we point to is Brahman." This does justice
neither to Advaita nor to any other meaningful doctrine , and somehow,
people seem to miss the fact that even purely mundane fields and
studies need a sustained effort and discipline spanning years or
decades, and expect that Vedanta, which by all accounts is a superior
kind of learning, will come instantly and effortlessly. That
assumption, that there will be great reward with no meaningful effort,
and that the rigors and disciplines laid down by tradition to acquire
this knowledge may be conveniently dispensed with, alone is enough to
boggle the mind of any straight-thinking person. Of course, it is
nonetheless a convenient delusion to have, so there are any number of
misguided innocents who will guilelessly accept it without
examination.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
--
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
